Do you want to go straight to a particular resource? Use the Jump Tool and follow 2 steps:
Look for the pages that have the shortcut code symbol Quill - Jump To Icon (e4242)
Jump To
e4242
You can click this icon to copy the jump to url to that page to your clipboard, ready to paste into emails, notes, documents or research papers as needed.
This can usually be found in the top hero section of overview,
delegations visualize, session visualize, event visualize, commentary collection, commentary item,
resource
collection, and resource item pages.
Enter the shortcut code for the page that you wish to search for.
Retrieving full text, please wait
These papers were digitized by Dr Shelley Deane, Annabel Harris, Isha Pareek, Antoine Yenk, Ruth Murray and Eleanor Williams. We are very grateful to the library and archives staff at Bowdoin College for all their kindness and help in assembling this material, particularly Kat Stefko and Anne Sauer.
[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"CONFIDENTIAL"},{"insert":"\n\nFROM: Independent Chairmen Notetakers\n13 June 1996\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"SUMMARY RECORD OF INTRODUCTORY INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS ON PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES AND AGENDA FOR PLENARY SESSION - WEDNESDAY 12 JUNE 1996 (11.45)"},{"insert":"\n\nThose present:-\n\n"},{"attributes":{"underline":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Independent Chairmen"},{"insert":"\n\nSenator Mitchell\nGeneral de Chastelain\nMr Holkeri\n\n"},{"attributes":{"underline":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Government Teams"},{"insert":"\n\nBritish Government\nIrish Government\n\n"},{"attributes":{"underline":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Parties"},{"insert":"\n\nAlliance Party\nLabour Party\nNorthern Ireland Women's Coalition Party\nProgressive Unionist Party\nSocial Democratic and Labour Party\nUlster Democratic Party\nUlster Unionist Party\n\n1.\t\tThe "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" opened the proceedings by welcoming everyone to the informal discussion. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr McMichael"},{"insert":" sought clarification as to when the appropriate opportunity might occur to allow the absent parties to affirm their commitment to the Mitchell Principles in the appropriate manner. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr McMichael"},{"insert":" continued, concerned with the precedent which might be set when members of the delegations belonging to the absent parties would be meeting and talking to others from parties who had committed themselves to the six Principles. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" indicated, on a general point, that this meeting was not a formal plenary session but rather an introductory discussion, focusing on the potential mechanisms required to establish procedural guidelines for the handling of business.\n\n2.\tThe "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then asked for the views of others on Mr McMichael's point. Before this occurred "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr McMichael"},{"insert":" stated that he believed now was an appropriate time for both parties to be asked to subscribe to the Mitchell Principles before moving on to future business. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Trimble"},{"insert":" interjected by saying he believed some contact was presently ongoing with those parties and asked the Chairman for an update on this. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" commented that it was his understanding that there had already been some discussions prior to this meeting being convened which were focusing on a mechanism to bring both parties in. He had personally spoken to a member of the UKUP and sought a commitment from them. Although he not received a response at this time he expected that this would be forthcoming soon after further consultation.\n\n3.\t"},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr McMichael"},{"insert":" offered the view that it was still appropriate to ask how the other delegates felt about his original point. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Curran"},{"insert":" commented that the important issue was confidentiality. All matters under discussion should, in his view, be regarded as confidential and he therefore believed that those who had signed up to the Mitchell Principles should at the very least be offered the opportunity of confidentiality. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Hume"},{"insert":" supported Mr McMichael's point of creating precedents between parties. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Ms McWilliams"},{"insert":" also voiced some concerns over the situation of party delegates and other members in the two absent delegations talking to their counterparts who had affirmed commitments to the Mitchell Principles. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr McBride"},{"insert":" stated that his party was not in a hurry to confront the matter as he believed other parties who had yet to commit to the Principles should become involved in the process. He was therefore happy to defer this issue to a later date.\n\n4.\tAt 11.53 Dr Paisley and Mr Robinson entered the Conference Room. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" welcomed both gentlemen and invited them to join in the proceedings. He outlined that as a first step and in common with the other parties earlier in the day he would ask for Dr Paisley, on behalf of his party, to affirm its commitment to the Mitchell Principles. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then read out the Mitchell Principles. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Dr Paisley"},{"insert":" commented that the entire proceedings were a complete charade with people inside the conference committing themselves to principles and apparently abandoning others outside. He continued by saying that his Deputy had made an unequivocal commitment to the Mitchell Principles earlier in the year at Westminster. However, it seemed that whilst people were asking the UDUP to commit themselves to the Principles, he also wanted to see the Irish Government accepting the principle that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland could only be determined by the people living within that entity. In concluding "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Dr Paisley"},{"insert":" formally accepted the six Principles without reservation. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" stated he was happy to accept the DUP's statement. He added that, in line with others earlier, he would regard Dr Paisley's additional comments as being personal. At 11.57, Dr Paisley and Mr Robinson left the Conference Room. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" commented that the DUP's commitment to the Principles now only left the UKUP to do so. He felt that this issue could be resolved shortly and asked for a brief adjournment asking all those delegates present to remain in the Conference Room, subject to the call of the Chair.\n\n5.\tSome 30 minutes later, the "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" asked the meeting to come to order and thanked them for their patience. He stated that he now wanted to proceed with the intended subject matter (para 5 of the \"a possible approach to resolving procedural guidelines\" paper.) He noted that there was no representative of the UKUP present at this time but he still hoped to resolve this issue shortly. In these circumstances and given the fact that "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr McMichael's"},{"insert":" concerns no longer existed, it was now time to move on. The Chairman re-emphasised points made earlier in the morning that the delegations did not have much time available to discuss and consider those matters referred to in both paras 2 and 5 of the document. While it appeared that there was a calendar week available, others had duties at Westminster on Thursday and there was a Forum meeting scheduled for Friday. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" reflected that this in reality only left the coming Monday and Tuesday to reach agreement on these issues.\n\n6.\tIn light of this the "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" offered the following as a possible way forward:\n\n- two nominees from each party should be brought together to discuss procedural rules and guidelines;"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n\n"},{"insert":"- nominees should have an authoritative position within their party with an ability to say yes or no when appropriate;"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n\n"},{"insert":"- no single set of rules was currently on the table; procedural guidelines had been produced by both Governments and a set of procedural rules from the Strand Two negotiations in 1992 were also considered helpful;"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n\n"},{"insert":"- each party should provide a written submission by 17.00 hours on Friday (14 June) as to their proposals for procedural rules;"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n\n"},{"insert":"- if it is reasonable and the parties agree, each view should be circulated to the other parties;"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n\n"},{"insert":"- the discussions would then reconvene at 10.00 on Monday 17 June in order that further consideration and discussion could culminate in a report to the Plenary session at noon on Wednesday 19 June."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n7.\t"},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Mallon"},{"insert":" asked for clarification of the \"rules\" which the Chairman had mentioned. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" stated that he had been referring simply to two sets of rules with which he had some familiarity. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Mallon"},{"insert":" asked whether the rules of 1992 had not already been incorporated into the two Governments' proposals dated 6 June 1996. The Chairman believed that there were some elements of commonality but that differences also existed. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Empey"},{"insert":" stated that his own party had proposed a set of rules as an alternative to the 6 June 1996 paper and sought confirmation as to whether other proposals could still be introduced at this stage.\n\n8.\tThe "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Minister of State"},{"insert":" (Mr Ancram) offered to make copies of the 1992 rules available to delegates. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" welcomed this. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Donaldson"},{"insert":" remarked that paras 2 and 5 of the document also referred to the agenda for the Opening Plenary Session, and sought clarification as to whether parties should be including proposals for this in their papers. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" indicated that this was his intention.\n\n9.\t"},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Mallon"},{"insert":" also requested clarification in relation to the agenda mentioned in paras 2 and 5. Did this mean the opening agenda circulated early in the morning in the \"possible approach to resolving procedural difficulties\" paper or the substantive agenda. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that the reference was to the agenda for the Opening Plenary Session. He then enquired as to how best to progress the discussions. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Minister of State"},{"insert":" (Mr Ancram) suggested that the meeting could be in a reduced format not necessarily compromising full delegations. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" stated that he thought two members per delegation might be sufficient.\n\n10.\t"},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Close"},{"insert":" enquired if it was the intention to circulate the papers over the weekend. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said no. They would be available on Monday morning as it would neither be feasible or practical to have them circulated to the parties over the weekend. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Neeson"},{"insert":" suggested that two people per delegation would be manageable. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" agreed but again stressed that such persons should have the authority to make decisions.\n\n11.\t"},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Mallon"},{"insert":" referred to the potential logistical problems which occur on Monday morning. Some parties (both Governments) had already prepared papers and there would be those who might be supportive of the joint government approach. The discussions could, however, also centre on other proposals and it would be very helpful for the parties to have those proposals in advance, so that further consideration could occur, if required, prior to Monday's meeting. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said this was a good idea in principle and asked for suggestions as to how to achieve it in practice. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Ervine"},{"insert":" said his party would have logistical difficulties over the weekend and suggested that each party pick up whatever papers were to hand on Saturday. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" said that was precisely what he was going to suggest. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Ervine"},{"insert":" responded warmly by saying this was the sign of a good Chairman!\n\n12.\tThe "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Minster for Justice"},{"insert":" (Ms Owen) said that the two Governments' proposals had been arrived at through painful and thorough discussion. These could therefore be regarded as representing the Irish Government's position, in terms of representing its best guidance in the matter. The parties of course already had these. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then suggested that the parties submissions should be sent in by 15:00 on Friday, copied and packaged in such a way as to enable each party to have sight of all other proposals. Such a package could then be collected by each party before 17:00 on that day.\n\n13.\t"},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Donaldson"},{"insert":" commented that his understanding of the discussion thus far was that each party would have the right and be free to argue its own viewpoint. No set of proposals should carry more weight than others. The _Chairman_ again emphasised that there was no single document before the meeting as a beginning point from which to work. The parties can support another party's paper if they so wish. The _Chairman_ restated the importance of the parties nominating two persons to represent them who would be available for the discussions on Monday and Tuesday with the authority to act on their party's behalf. The requirement was now confirmed that each party should submit their views in writing on paras 2 and 5 by Friday at 15:00; then copied and packaged for collection by 17:00 that day. His intention was that this smaller grouping would meet in a smaller room, if available, promptly at 10:00 on Monday morning. He encouraged each delegation to be prepared and spend a lot of time on these discussions to make progress.\n\n14.\t"},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Ervine"},{"insert":" said that they, being a smaller party, (as might be the case with other smaller parties), could have difficulty in producing two representatives while still wanting to retain sufficient technical expertise. He suggested instead that three nominations would allow for more flexibility in this regard and any two persons from the three nominated could attend the meetings. This was supported by "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Mallon"},{"insert":" who expressed sympathy for the smaller parties in this situation. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then said that he was attempting to obtain a commitment to the Principles in para 20 of the International Body's report from the UKUP and proposed a short adjournment at 12.55. At 13.05 "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr McCartney"},{"insert":" and "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr Wilson"},{"insert":" entered the Conference Room. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then put to them the six principles on democracy and non-violence in sequence, asking whether they would affirm their total and absolute commitment to them.\n\n15.\t"},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr McCartney"},{"insert":" said he had no difficulty whatsoever with them. They had informed his personal and political life. He also requested that as a further fundamental principle, the majority should have the right to determine the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as their state. This, he said, had already been accepted by the SDLP and the Forum on Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin. M"},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"r McCartney"},{"insert":" said he accepted the necessity and the fundamental requirement to subscribe to the Principles because there were others who would take advantage of a breach of technical rules, but it should be noted that some parties, who also subscribed to those principles, were involved in violence and murder.\n\n16.\tThe "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" thanked Mr McCartney for his presence and co-operation and said that as was the case with some other parties Mr McCartney had made additional comments which he regarded as personal. He proceeded to inform Mr McCartney of the administrative arrangements for submission of proposals as already discussed and agreed. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr McCartney"},{"insert":" suggested that as he had to leave the meeting (he was present at very short notice) he would leave this matter of detail to his observers or aides. At that point "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"General de Chastelain"},{"insert":" drew the Chairman’s attention to the fact that acceptance of these principles by Mr McCartney had been a personal one. The "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then asked Mr McCartney did he also accept them on behalf of this party. "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Mr McCartney"},{"insert":" said yes, totally and unreservedly. At that stage both he and Mr Wilson left the meeting.\n\n17.\tThe "},{"attributes":{"underline":true},"insert":"Chairman"},{"insert":" then concluded the meeting at 13.10 and said that the documents should be delivered to and be collected from Room B5.7, Castle Buildings. \n\n \n[Signed] \n\n \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Independent Chairmen Notetakers"},{"insert":" \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"13 June 1996"},{"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"OIC/2"},{"insert":"\n"}]
Explore Groupings
Grouping Name
910
48
10
911
48
5
912
48
6
Folder 02: Final Report, 22 January 1996
1605
11996
Folder 34: [Meetings, 16 December 1995–19 January 1996]
1606
471995 - 1996
Mitchell Principles
^
Folders 01-03: Record of Informal Discussions on Rules of Procedure and Opening Agenda, 12 June 1996 to 2 July 1996
43
3
04
114
141996 - 1996
08
119
81997 - 1997
11
123
131996 - 1996
01
113
211996 - 1996
Folders 01-02: Minutes from Strand Two Meetings, 10 July 1997 to 24 March 1998 [Parts 2 and 3 of 3]
44
2
01
355
91997 - 1998
Tab A
358
161997 - 1997
06
367
121997 - 1998
08
370
351997 - 1998
Folder 01: Press Statements by the Independent Chairmen, 6 June 1996 to 30 October 1997
45
221996 - 1997
14
377
311996 - 1996
17
381
201997 - 1997
19
384
351997 - 1998
23
389
711996 - 1997
Multi-Party Talks, 1996–1998
^
Folders 04-06: Minutes from Opening Plenary Sessions, 12 June 1996 to 30 October 1996
43
3
05
114
141996 - 1996
09
119
12
123
121996 - 1997
02
113
161996 - 1996
02
355
51998 - 1998
Folders 03-05: Strand Two Documents
44
8
Tab B
358
101997 - 1997
07
367
101997 - 1998
09
370
181998 - 1998
Folder 13: Relation of the Forum to the Talks, 1996
45
51996 - 1996
15
377
131985 - 1996
18
381
81997 - 1998
20
384
281997 - 1998
24
389
491996 - 1996
Folder 03: [Draft Versions of the Final Report]
1605
221996
06
114
121996 - 1996
Folder 07: Record of Informal Discussions on Rules of Procedure and Opening Agenda, 3 July 1996 to 25 July 1996
43
131996 - 1996
10
119
111997 - 1998
13
123
71997 - 1997
03
113
71996 - 1996
Tab C
358
81997 - 1997
Folders 06-07: Minutes of Plenary Meetings, Review Plenary Meetings, and Cross-Strand Meetings
44
2
10
370
231998 - 1998
Folders 14-16: Pre-Multi Party Talks Background Documents
45
3
16
377
91996
21
384
91997 - 1998
Folders 08-10: Minutes from Opening Plenary Sessions, 3 June 1997 to 24 September 1997
43
3
Tab D
358
91997 - 1997
Folders 08-10: Final Agreement Documents, 30 March to 10 April (Volume 1)
44
3
Folders 17-18: Liaison Subcommittee on Decommissioning – Documents and Minutes
45
2
22
384
71998 - 1998
Folders 11-13: Minutes from Opening Plenary Sessions, 30 October 1996 to 5 March 1997
43
3
Tab E
358
61997 - 1997
Folder 11: Final Agreement Documents, 30 March to 10 April (Volume 2)
44
41998
Folders 19-22: Liaison Subcommittee for Confidence Building Measures – Submissions and Minutes
45
4
Folder 14: Decommissioning Proposals and Miscellaneous Documents, May 1997 to July 1997
43
191996 - 1997
Tab F
358
71997 - 1997
Folders 23-24: Documents and Associated Items from Fall 1996 to Winter 1997 Opening Plenary Debates
This document contains the summary record of the introductory informal discussion on procedural guidelines and agenda for plenary session that took place on 12 June 1996. The meeting started with a discussion about the parties that had not yet declared their commitment to the Mitchell Principles and related issues of confidentiality; DUP and UKUP delegates eventually arrived in the meeting and affirmed their commitment to the Mitchell Principles. George Mitchell offered suggestions for the way ahead, and invited proposals for procedural rules from the parties. At the end of the meeting, it was decided that each delegation would submit their views on paragraphs 2 and 5 of the "Possible approach to resolving procedural difficulties" paper in writing for discussion on 17 June 1996.
The Quill Project has received one-time, non-exclusive use of the papers in this collection from Bowdoin College Library to make them available online as part of Writing Peace.
This document was created by Irish and British Government civil servants in the course of their duties and therefore falls under Crown Copyright and Irish Government Copyright. Both Governments are committed to the European Communities (Re-Use of Public Sector Information) Regulations.
Subseries 2 (M202.7.2) Commission Documents (1995-1998), Series 7 (M202.7) Northern Ireland Records (1995-2008), George J. Mitchell Papers, George J. Mitchell Department of Special Collections & Archives, Bowdoin College Library, Brunswick, Maine, digitized by the Quill Project at https://quillproject.net/resource_collections/125.
