object to British proposals just because they were based on LegCo resolutions. He said China regarded LegCo members as legitimate advisers as an established part of the Hong Kong community. I appreciate there may be different views on the past status of HK officials, and also the difference between LegCo, and LegCo members. But such differences may not need to be resolved in the short term. There are fundamental differences between the Chinese view of the role of LegCo before and after 1997, and the view implicit in the Governor's proposals. But these difficulties may be best worked through by demonstration up to 1997, and not by searching for formal agreement now.
Might a possible way ahead be
1. To agree to UK-China talks, with the HK officials taking
part on the same basis as before.
2.
3.
4.
For the talks to cover the same topics as the Bill, but not the Bill itself.
For LegCo hearings, debates and votes to proceed simultaneously with the talks, with the advice of LegCo on a topic being voted on and transmitted through the Governor to the British government, before the topic was considered in the talks. There could be the equivalent to Committee and Report stages to the debates/talks.
For a LegCo Bill finally to enact an agreement.
This would not be quite as unstructured as it appears, because there are two separate sets of proposals on the table already - the Governor's and China's, and LegCo members would be constantly talking to and reacting to the Governor and China. The Governor is well used to such debate. It would be a relevant and sophisticated learning experience for LegCo members. China could frustrate the whole process, using the veto of delay. But likewise the Governor could go ahead with the Bill. Given other ways of reacting, China might then give some weight to the general considerations of stability and continuity.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Chris Patten.
Зат
Your ment
Oxenry Bray
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.