TNAG-2964-FCO40-4243-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Consular-representation-of-European-Coun-1993 — Page 87

CONFIDENTIAL

052444 MDIAN 7041

SIDE COULD THEN BE CONSULTED AS TO THE POST 1997 ARRANGEMENTS AT A MORE FAVOURABLE TIME.

4.

WE EXPLAINED TO BORRELL THAT UNDER EXISTING HONG KONG LAW, CAP.190 WAS THE ONLY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION FOR THE GRANT OF SUCH PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES. BORRELL SEEMED TO DISLIKE THE IDEA OF SETTING UP THE OFFICE UNDER CAP.190: HIS DIFFICULTIES WERE BOTH PRESENTATIONAL AND SUBSTANTIVE.

5.

BORRELL SAID THAT SINCE THE EC WAS 'NOT AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION' CAP.190 WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN VIEW OF THE REFERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS' IN ITS TITLE. WE POINTED OUT THAT THE TERM 'INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION' AS DEFINED IN A DOMESTIC ORDINANCE WAS HARDLY RELEVANT TO THE PARTICULAR INTERNATIONAL DESIGNATION PREFERRED BY THE EC. TO BE HELPFUL, WE ALSO INDICATED FLEXIBILITY AS TO THE EC OFFICES'S PLACE IN THE PRECEDENCE LIST OF HONG KONG. BORRELL WAS NOT CONVINCED.

6.

BORRELL PASSED US A DRAFT LIST OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES THAT THE EC SOUGHT FOR THE OFFICE, (A COPY FOLLOWS BY FAX). IT IS CLEAR FROM THE REVISED LIST THAT WHAT THE EC ARE AFTER ARE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ON A DIPLOMATIC SCALE WHICH EXCEED THOSE AVAILABLE TO CONSULATES-GENERAL IN HONG KONG. WE ADVISED BORRELL OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AVAILABLE UNDER CAP.190, BUT BORELL DID NOT APPEAR TO BE SATISFIED.

7

"

BORRELL SAID HE WOULD SEEK INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE EC AND REVERT. AT HIS REQUEST, WE AGREED TO SEND HIM A LETTER SETTING OUT THE POSITION OF THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT AND LISTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AVAILABLE UNDER CAP.190 (LETTER DATED 2 AND 11 JANUARY FOLLOWS BY FAX).

8. BORELL REQUESTED AT ONE STAGE THE ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION TAILOR-MADE FOR THE EC OFFICE. WE EXPLAINED THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF SUCH AN APPROACH. FIRST, UNLIKE CAP.190 WHICH ONLY REQUIRED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IN THE FORM OF A NOTIFICATION BY THE GOVERNOR, FRESH LEGISLATION WOULD REQUIRE THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL WHICH WE COULD NOT GUARANTEE. EVEN ASSUMING A SMOOTH PASSAGE THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, THE ESTIMATED MINIMUM TIME NEEDED FOR NEW LEGISLATION WOULD BE ONE YEAR. THE TIME NEEDED TO EXTEND CAP.190 WAS HOWEVER AROUND SIX WEEKS, IF ALL THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS WERE IN ORDER. WE ALSO EXPLAINED TO BORRELL THE POLITICAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH INTRODUCING NEW LEGISLATION. IT WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY ATTRACT