Record of informal discussion on procedural guidelines and agenda for plenary session on 26 June 1996 at 15.35

This document contains the summary record of the informal discussion on procedural guidelines and the agenda for the plenary session that took place on 26 June 1996. The Chairman began by promising the participants that he would have a paper prepared by the next day for the discussion on the status of the Ground Rules, and also decided a time for the next meeting. The delegates discussed the provisions on decision-making, and the Chairman invited comments on paragraph 27, specifically the proposed additions and deletions in the text. David Trimble rescinded his objections regarding the third test for sufficient consensus mentioned in the paragraph (i.e. the requirement for the approval of a majority of the participating political parties), on the basis that it would likely not pose a problem in practice. Reg Empey supported the deletion of "clear" from "clear majority". John Alderdice and Alex Attwood emphasized that the sufficient consensus provision was only to be invoked in case the delegates were stuck in a deadlock and unable to achieve unanimity. At the Chairman's request, the parties agreed to approve paragraph 27. Regarding paragraph 30, Robinson argued that since he had compromised on paragraph 27, that the Governments should show flexibility on this item. He argued that the Business Committee should coordinate the flow of information from Strand 1 to the Irish Government. Seamus Mallon argued that sovereign Governments should not need to filter the flow of information via the Business Committee. Bronagh Hinds and Trimble disputed the aptness of the Business Committee as the site of coordination, and Trimble suggested that they should adopt the approach from the 1992 talks where participants decided what documents on or from Strand 1 proceedings would be passed on to the Irish Government. Alderdice argued that the reality was that both Governments were bound to exchange information, and that everyone should accept that not all participants in these talks were on the same level. Cedric Wilson resisted using approaches from 1992 talks as precedent. Sean O'hUiggin asked Robinson if he would accept the same arrangement for Strand 3 discussions. The delegates agreed to park the issue and move on. Regarding paragraphs 31-34, Empey stated that UUP's attitude to the rules of procedure would depend on what the agenda items for the three strands were. Robinson asked the two Governments whether the position of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution could be dealt with in Strand 2. Quentin Thomas responded that both agenda items would be placed in the purview of Strand 2 and Stand 3. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 17.20.

Download File (format is: "application/pdf")

Writing Peace: George J. Mitchell Collection

(To go a specific resource item, please click on its link.)

None

Introductory Informal Discussions on Procedural Guidelines and Agenda 1996-06-26 15:35

Copyright

None

Physical Copy Information

None

Digital Copy Information

None

Resource Collections

Writing Peace: George J. Mitchell Collection

Record of informal discussion on procedural guidelines and agenda for plenary session on 26 June 1996 at 15.35

Friday, 28 June 1996

Writing Peace: George J. Mitchell Collection