Jeffrey Donaldson tells Frank Millar that when he says something, he means it.
Q: Does next Monday's meeting represent your final attempt to depose David Trimble as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party?
A: This is not about the personalities within the party although sadly there are those who because they don't have a coherent argument to make in defence of the joint [British-Irish\] declaration have tried to turn it into personality issues. But it is about leadership in another sense because as a party, we need to decide on the direction in which we're going. In that sense this is a defining moment for the Ulster Unionist Party and for unionism.
I've watched for the last five years as unionism has punched below its weight. We've been divided and represented at the negotiating table by a group of people whose ability to represent the views of ordinary unionists on the ground diminishes all the time. In fact, recent opinion polls suggest that only about a third of unionists would vote for the agreement given the way it's been implemented; therefore two-thirds of unionism and the concerns that those people have are not being represented at the negotiating table.
Q: Obviously it's about the policy, though you acknowledge it is also about leadership. Based on what you've just said, isn't the simple truth that you have no confidence in David Trimble's leadership or his ability to represent the Unionist interest as you define it.
A: Well I have major concerns about what happened at Hillsborough and I think that the proper place to address these concerns is at the Ulster Unionist Council. But it is about the policy. Our objectives as a party we were told were devolution and decommissioning - but where are we today with those objectives: we don't have an assembly, that's been prorogued, the elections have been cancelled so the prospects of devolution being restored in the near future are diminishing and the decommissioning process is going absolutely nowhere. None of the paramilitary terrorist groups is co-operating on the decommissioning issue. So after five years of continual negotiation, of being in and out of government with Sinn Féin, what have we got to show for that?
Q: And you hold Mr Trimble responsible for this.
A: No, I think it's unfair to put all of this on to the shoulders of one person. I think rather than get into that kind of finger-pointing exercise, it is much better for the council to come together to look at these issues and reach a conclusion that the joint declaration is not the way forward, is deeply flawed, that we've got to draw a line over these mistakes and move forward. And I'm hoping we can get agreement on that at the Ulster Unionist Council.
Q: I'm pressing you because, as you know, a lot of your critics say, 'the problem with Jeffrey is that he's afraid to wield the dagger'.
A: My critics believe that all I want is to become the leader of the Unionist Party. It seems that there's no room for principle any longer in politics but that's not what I'm about. This is not about personal ambition. It is about unionism, it's about the reasons why I joined the Unionist Party over 21 years ago, it's about watching the party that I have a deep commitment to ditching principle after principle. We ditched our no guns no government policy and now we're ditching our bottom line, which is that there should be no rule for Dublin in the internal affairs of the Assembly. And I think that is an issue that needs to be faced head on.
Q: I understand your reluctance to personalise this, yet you've indicated that if you fail to carry the vote you will consider your position. Now, is this a real threat? Might you have a Clare Short moment and change your mind at the last minute or will you see it through if the vote goes against you?
A: I've said I will consider my position and I've nothing to add to that because it would be a contradiction to say on the one hand you will consider your position after the 16th but to have already made your mind up prior to the 16th about what you are going to do. But let's be clear. I am not one who's given to rash pronouncements, when I say something I mean it. And for me, if the Ulster Unionist Party gives its consent to proposals that give Dublin for the first time a say in the internal affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly then that for me is a bridge too far.
Q: So you will go.
A: After the party ditched its no guns no government policy, I had to think long and hard about my position. I decided on that occasion that I would remain within the party in the hope that I could persuade them back to a principled position. Eventually last September, we brought the party back to that position and secured unanimous agreement.
But if the party breaches this principle, of Dublin interference in the affairs of the Assembly, I don't see how there is a way back from that.
Once you concede that principle then the principle is broken and it is broken for ever. In those circumstances I have to ask myself the question: is the Ulster Unionist Party the best vehicle by which to secure the Union and the benefits of the Union for the people of Northern Ireland?
Q: I understand why you say those are the issues you would grapple with after the decision on Monday. But anybody reading this will think you have already addressed these questions and that you know the answer.
A: I will make my decision after 16th June on all of those issues taking all of these things into account.
Q: Some people think you made a terrible mistake in making this threat.
A: I'm not one who's given to rash pronouncements. I said what I said because I wanted to be honest and up front with people. I can only speak for myself but I know that there are many others in the party who hold the same concerns that I do. I found it insulting for one senior officer colleague to describe what was for me an honest statement as some attempt to blackmail the Ulster Unionist Council. Anyone who knows me knows that that is not what I am about. And it is time for a bit of honesty within the Ulster Unionist Party, it's time for people to be up front.
Q: I'm inviting you to be up front. You don't have a shred of confidence in David Trimble's leadership and you think you'd be the better leader. Isn't that the bottom line?
A: No it's not the bottom line because I don't think it's right to focus this all on one individual. The fault lines go much deeper than the personalities and what I'm saying is that the issue is not who leads the Unionist Party, the issue is in what direction is the party going collectively?
Q: You say accepting the Joint Declaration would be a bridge too far and I think anybody reading this interview will think it pretty clear that you will go. If you win the vote and stay, where does that leave Mr Trimble.
A: Well I can only speak for myself and what I have said is that if the Ulster Unionist Council votes in any way to endorse or to fudge its response to the joint declaration, then I will have to consider my position. It is for others to say what they will do in circumstances where the recommendations they make are voted down by the council.
Q: Let me put it to you that Mr Trimble could suffer a policy defeat and remain the leader quite comfortably because, just possibly, you've moved too soon and the council might decide that the real defining moment comes if and when he proposes the resumption of power-sharing with Sinn Féin.
A: But if the Ulster Unionist Council take that view, they will not be supporting my motion.
Q: In which case you're gone. Is there room for yet another Unionist Party or would you maybe just join the DUP?
A: That's an entirely hypothetical situation which I'm not going to rehearse at this stage in terms of the decisions that will have to be addressed beyond the 16th June. My absolute preferred outcome is that the Ulster Unionist Council votes to reject the Joint Declaration.
Having served for over 21 years in the party, devoted a considerable part of my life towards securing the objectives or unionism, I want to see the party placing itself in a much stronger position than it is in at present and that has to mean addressing some pretty harsh realities in terms of this joint declaration but nevertheless important issues which taken together I do believe represent a crucial decision, a defining moment for the party and for unionism.
Q: Say you finally grind Mr Trimble down and he falls on his sword and you succeed him. What would be the distinguishing point of a Jeffrey Donaldson leadership. Because of course you're not really anti the Belfast Agreement as such, you are simply split on the decommissioning issue. Would you seek to preserve the agreement or would you join with the DUP in seeking a renegotiation?
A: Well we're not talking about a Jeffrey Donaldson leadership, that situation has not arisen. What I want to see the Unionist Party doing collectively is to acknowledge that the agreement is flawed, that it hasn't worked, that it needs to be changed, that there does need to be renegotiation . . .
I have made no secret of my view that for as long as unionism is divided and is at the negotiating table with one half - and at the moment maybe one third - of unionism represented and the other part not, we will continue to punch below our weight and that will continue to result in agreements that are not to the advantage or benefit of unionism generally. That must mean that in any future negotiations all of unionism is represented. It has to mean the DUP being involved in that process and unionists working together to secure the best deal, the best agreement that we can; one which offers the prospect of political stability for Northern Ireland and brings closure on the conflict.
Q: You talk about bringing closure to the conflict. Why would the IRA deliver better terms for you than it has for David Trimble?
A: It's not about what they deliver to Jeffrey Donaldson, it's about what they deliver to the people I represent because it's the middle ground of unionism that needs to be convinced and at the moment the majority of them are sick of the way the IRA has played fast and loose with this process. The problem at the moment is that this process is going nowhere fast.
If the republicans are going to deliver and deliver what unionism needs to see very clearly - that there is closure on the conflict - I think they'll only do that in circumstances where they are dealing with a unionist bloc that is in a strong position and where they recognise that they can no longer get away with simply exploiting the divisions and weaknesses within unionism.
I do not think that we can go into negotiations again with only a minority of unionists represented at the negotiating table. That is not a viable proposition and the process is untenable in those circumstances.