CONFIDENTIAL
{102121/~~9C15~~}
FROM: D J R HILL
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT TEAM
11 JUNE 1996
cc PS/Secretary of State (L&B) -B
PS/Sir John Wheeler (L, B+DFP) -B
PS/Michael Ancram (L, B+DENI) -B
PS/Malcolm Moss (L, DOE+DHSS) -B
PS/Baroness Denton (L, DED+DANI) -B
PS/PUS (L+B) -B
PS/Sir David Fell -B
Mr Thomas (L+B) -B
Mr Bell -B
Mr Legge -B
Mr Leach -B
Mr Steele -B
Mr Watkins -B
Mr Beeton -B
Mr Maccabe
Mr Lavery -B
Mr Perry -B
Mr Stephens -B
Miss Harrison
Ms Checksfield -B
Ms Mapstone -B
Mr Why~~s~~all
Mr Lamont, RID -B
HMA Dublin -B
Mrs McNally
{Mrs Mc~~Nal~~ly PA _UUP_ cc Meetings with Partys}
File Note
TALKS: MEETING WITH MR TRIMBLE, 8.40AM, 11 JUNE
The Secretary of State received Mr Trimble, Mr Taylor and Mr Empey and explained that following reflection overnight the Government had produced a paper which set out a possible approach to resolving procedural differences. He gave them copies of the draft (which they retained) explaining that it was currently being shown to the Irish delegation.
2. Mr Trimble responded calmly\, but said that on first reading he found the proposal in the paper unacceptable because it would require Unionists to accept Senator Mitchell (crossing the rubicon) without having any reassurance that the agenda and procedural rules would subsequently be amended in appropriate ways. Indeed\, the Irish were briefing heavily that HMG had undertaken to join them in resisting any changes to the 6 June papers. (The Secretary of State denied this.) It would be far better\, Mr Trimble said\, to reverse the order of events in the Government’s paper : the procedural rules could be rewritten in a day\, or two at the most\, before the issue of the identity of the Chairmen was settled.
3. The Secretary of State pointed out that the Unionists would have the safeguard that business would not proceed beyond item 6 in the original proposed agenda; but the UUP dismissed the argument. Mr Empey argued that if they accepted the proposal but then got no satisfaction on the procedural rules they would have to carry the can for causing a blockage: they were safer\, politically\, in resisting it. Mr Taylor supported his colleagues reservations\, adding a few ungracious comments about Senator Mitchell: again\, one sensed his negative influence on Mr Trimble’s position.
4. Mr Trimble concluded the meeting by saying that he and his colleagues needed to consider the draft and possibly consult the SDLP.
(Signed)
D J R HILL
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT TEAM
11 JUNE 1996
CONFIDENTIAL
POLDEVT/112
