TNAG-2730-FCO40-3936-Future-of-Hong-Kong-constitutional-development-1993 — Page 38

SECRET

044 35

MDADAN 16

ADVICE, BUT I HAD TO INFORM YOU IF I DID NOT AND EXPLAIN WHY. IN PRACTICE I WAS QUITE CLEAR THAT I NEEDED THE ENDORSEMENT OF EXCO FOR WHATEVER WAS PUT TO LEGCO. THE PACKAGE WHICH EMERGED WOULD BE EXCO'S PACKAGE, AND EXCO WOULD HAVE TO STAND OVER IT, EVEN IF EVERY MEMBER DID NOT CAMPAIGN PUBLICLY FOR IT. WE COULD NOT HAVE MUTTERING BEHIND MEMBERS' HANDS OR MUTTERING TO THE PRESS. WHILE THE PACKAGE WAS UNDER DISCUSSION IN THE COUNCIL THERE WAS A NEED FOR EVEN GRATER CONFIDENTIALITY THAN USUAL. TODAY'S PAPERS (WHICH REPORT AN EXCO MEMBER AS SAYING THAT THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER AMENDING MY PROPOSALS ON THE ELECTION COMMITTEE) WERE NOT HELPFUL.

7.

I DESCRIBED HOW I SAW THE SITUATION AT PRESENT. THE UK SUPPORTED THE PROPOSALS ALTHOUGH THEY DID NOT GO AS FAR AS ESTABLISHED UK POLICY. CHINA OPPOSED THEM AND, DESPITE WHAT QIAN QICHEN HAD SAID TO ME IN PEKING, HAD REFUSED TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSIONS UNLESS I WITHDREW THEM. WHETHER THIS PRE-CONDITION WOULD BE MAINTAINED WAS UNCERTAIN. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL HAD HELD TWO DEBATES ON THEM, IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, AND HAD SUPPORTED THEM. THE MOOD OF THE COMMUNITY HAD BEEN FAIRLY RESILIENT. THE PROPOSALS HAD BEEN OVERWHELMINGLY POPULAR TO START WITH. UNDER CHINA'S ONSLAUGHT SUPPORT HAD ERODED, PARTICULARLY IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, BUT IT WAS STILL ROUGHLY TWO TO ONE IN FAVOUR. IN MY JUDGEMENT THE COMMUNITY WANTED US TO STAND FIRMISH BUT HOPED THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY PROPOSALS WOULD BE PASSED WITH WHICH CHINA COULD SOMEHOW LIVE.

8.

THERE WERE THREE ALTERNATIVE WAYS FORWARD. WE COULD PUT MY PROPOSALS TO LEGCO AS THEY WERE AND FIGHT HARD FOR THEM. I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE COUNTER PRODUCTIVE. WE COULD PUT THEM TO LEGCO MORE OR LESS AS THEY WERE, ARGUE FOR THEM, AND SEE WHAT EMERGED FROM LEGCO. OR WE COULD AMEND THEM TO A GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT AND HOPE THAT A MAJORITY WOULD SUPPORT THE NEW PROPOSALS.

9.

I SAID THAT I WANTED TO KNOW WHERE EACH UNOFFICIAL MEMBER STOOD. I ASKED THEM FOUR QUESTIONS. FIRST, IF THERE WERE CHANGE, HOW WOULD EXCO JUSTIFY IT, GIVEN THAT LEGCO HAD TWICE ENDORSED MY PROPOSALS QUERY. SECONDLY, COULD WE OBTAIN A LEGCO MAJORITY FOR CHANGED PROPOSALS, OR WOULD CHANGES BE NOT ENOUGH FOR THOSE WHO HAD HITHERTO CRITICISED US BUT TOO MUCH FOR THOSE WHO HAD SO FAR SUPPORTED US QUERY. THIRDLY, IF WE WERE TO CHANGE ONE ELEMENT OF THE PROPOSALS, COULD WE BE SURE THAT THE WHOLE WOULD STILL HANG TOGETHER QUERY. SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVES PUT FORWARD BY OTHERS WERE INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT. FOURTHLY, IF WE WERE TO CHANGE THE PROPOSALS, WHAT CREDIT WOULD WE GET FOR IT IN THE COMMUNITY, IF

PAGE

SECRET

2