TNAG-2289-FCO40-3293-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1991 — Page 61

The Baroness Dunn DBE JP

OMELCO

HONG KONG

Legal

Miss Dymoki

Stetina-3

1200

HKCA

colix

& prohibitong the imposition

of

such

restrictions,

Thank you for your letter of 5 September, after the

and for you kind wares. { meeting of the Executive Council, which I round, most interesting.

the meeting r right of abode

^

I note your views about the nationality restrictions in the Basic Law. In the absence of any specific provision in the Joint Declaration prohibiting the SAR

for right of a bode, Government from imposing any nationality qualifications Augurments other than those in Annex 1, Chapter IV, we do not think that hver to breach of the JD, it correct to describe the relevant articles of the Basic

we think the

better

MB.

We did not prime the point for politicals not legals reasons? irrould

not be prepared

to give detailed

Cepal advice.

S Brooks

Law as a breach of the Joint Declaration. (If you wish to pursue this point we could provide you with the detailed legal advice, perhaps through the Governor or Political Adviser.) But we certainly see the articles in question as damaging and contrary to the spirit of the

Joint Declaration. We left the Chinese in no doubt of our positon during the drafting and before the adoption of the Basic Law. But in the highly charged atmosphere after Tiananmen and the announcement of our Nationality

X