TNAG-2732-FCO40-3938-Future-of-Hong-Kong-constitutional-development-1993 — Page 103

SECRET

wide differences between their and our interpretations of the

general formulations on this subject in the Joint Declaration

and the Basic Law. It is now clearer that we cannot expect to achieve fully all the above objectives. Some of the questions which lie behind the day to day judgements include:

- How can we best preserve Hong Kong's autonomy after

1997: by building up LegCo before 1997, even though it might be dissolved by the Chinese on the transfer of sovereignty, or making the compromises necessary to secure Chinese agreement that the structures in place

in 1997 will continue?

How important is it that we should secure Chinese

agreement that all members of LegCo elected in 1995

should be able to ride "through train" beyond 1997

provided they meet the Basic Law requirements? # Would failure to achieve this be accepted in Hong Kong as grounds for breaking off talks?

- How far would the community in Hong Kong want us to go

to achieve a cooperative relationship with China?

How important is it to preserve a working relationship with China over Hong Kong, over the airport, other major contracts, and the mass of work in the JLG aimed

at securing a smooth transition?

# Footnote: The Basic Law provides that those members

of LegCo elected in 1995 who uphold the BL, pledge allegiance to the SAR and meet the requirements of the BL may, upon confirmation by the SAR Preparatory Committee, remain members of LegCo beyond July 1997.

HongKongissuesahead/BRIEFS/NJH

SECRET