The absolute deadline for calling a November 13 election is next Wednesday. It may happen without a deal now that the International Monitoring Commission is in place. Richard Haass's visit increases the prospect.
If there is an election, as there should be, the chances of a functioning executive afterwards look much worse than a week ago. The reason is the spanner the UUP executive threw into the works with their rejection of the joint declaration.
Trimble denies it's a rejection, says the resolution is "nuanced". But, as Jeffrey Donaldson points out, the resolution calls for "radical change" to the joint declaration and states that it is "not a satisfactory basis for progress". As he asks, "If that's not rejection, what is?"
Certainly the UUP website agrees. It headlines Friday's decision thus: "Executive rejects joint declaration and party officers defer disciplinary action against MPs."
In short, another complete cave-in by Trimble. The consequence of Trimble's defeat at the hands of his dissidents on Friday night, for that's what it was, is very serious. The joint declaration boils down to this: It asked the UUP this question: If the IRA decommissions its weaponry, ends all paramilitary activity, accepts that its war is over and agrees to wind up as a military organisation – a pretty tall order you'll admit – will you, the UUP, agree to work the Good Friday Agreement and implement the outstanding parts of it? On Friday the UUP said no.
About the only part of the joint declaration the UUP executive accepted was paragraph 13 which deals in terms with the end of IRA activity. But even if the IRA does everything paragraph 13 asks of it, the UUP will still not countenance the implementation of the rest of the agreement.
They hedged the devolution of justice powers around with all sorts of undefined preconditions and they rejected any all-Ireland dimension to justice. Of course they also rejected the five annexes both governments attached and which have nothing to do with the UUP, such as IRA fugitives and British demilitarisation of the north.
So who does Trimble think he's kidding by claiming his party executive has not rejected the joint declaration because it endorsed the sections directed at republicans? The truth is that once again his capitulation to the UUP anti-agreement wing has placed them in the driving seat.
The three MPs will hang on until next week before they take the party whip again in case Trimble announces a deal with Gerry Adams. If he does, they'll call a UUC meeting to reject the deal because any deal has to be predicated on the UUP implementing the agreement which contradicts Friday's resolution.
It makes you wonder what all the fuss was about in May. The plain truth is that the dissidents have got their way. Why didn't Trimble just give in in May instead of trying to boot them out? The position they wanted to adopt then is now the UUP position. Trimble can't unsay that resolution. Therefore the UUP manifesto will commit the party to fight any election campaign on a platform opposing implementation of the agreement while Trimble, Empey and McGimpsey, the only three amigos who ever endorse any aspect of the agreement, will simultaneously claim they are pro-agreement. What a mess.
You have to ask however, is this what Trimble wanted all along? Bear in mind that after a similar charade last autumn which ended in a UUC resolution endorsing the Donaldsonite position, Trimble came out and said the only difference between him and Donaldson was tactics. He was pulling out of the executive by December 2002 if he didn't get his way and would have if the Special Branch hadn't done the job for him.
It appears now that Trimble didn't want the UUP to reject the joint declaration outright in May only because he wants to hollow it out over the next five years stalling on justice, threatening to walk out of any executive if the British move, say, on demilitarisation or OTRs. In other words using exactly the same ploy he has adopted since 1998 – pretending to support the agreement while his actions show he doesn't, undermining its operation, interfering in aspects which were supposed to be the province of the two governments or independent commissions, and trying to dictate how they operate. As time goes on the suspicion hardens that the reason for Trimble's minimalist, destructive response to an agreement he supposedly supports is because he fears that unless he at least pays lip service to this agreement, any joint government initiative would be infinitely worse for unionists.
The alternative conclusion is that he's so inept as to defy belief. Otherwise, why does he allow party dissidents to drive party policy?
