Ulster Unionist leader Mr David Trimble is set to reject changes to the voting rules for the Stormont Assembly designed to override the DUP veto and enable the early restoration of a power-sharing Executive. Frank Millar, London Editor, reports.
His decision - in the context of a post-election repositioning of the UUP - has potentially serious implications for the British and Irish governments as they prepare for a review of the Belfast Agreement, which the Rev Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party is determined will result in a wholesale renegotiation.
It is understood to mean Mr Trimble will not attempt to resume the post of First Minister courtesy of an Alliance Party proposal to permit the election of First and Deputy First Ministers by a simple weighted majority rather than by a majority of unionist and nationalist Assembly members as required under the existing rules.
Instead some supporters, as well as critics, of the Ulster Unionist leader are suggesting that a reassessment of the UUP's position following its election setback could open the door to greater unionist co-operation in response to Sinn Féin's ascendancy within nationalism.
Mr Trimble - who faces the threat of a leadership challenge at his party council's annual meeting in March - is expected to spell out his thinking on the way forward at a special "away day" session of his Assembly party on Saturday.
And while he is declining to make public comment ahead of that event, senior sources have told The Irish Times they expect him to start distancing the UUP from existing London/Dublin commitments in respect of the Belfast Agreement and April's British-Irish Joint Declaration.
There is no suggestion that Mr Trimble will renounce the Belfast Agreement or apologise for decisions taken under his leadership in negotiations with the two governments and other pro-agreement parties.
However a key theme of a shifting strategy appears to be an acknowledgement that a clear unionist majority - including many Ulster Unionist voters - have demonstrated their unhappiness with the implementation of the agreement and the failure of the two governments to secure paramilitary "acts of completion".
The Joint Declaration defined voting procedures and the "designation" of parties in the Assembly as either unionist or nationalist as issues for the review, scheduled to start on January 29th.
And the possibility of a rule change, empowering the overall pro-agreement majority in the still-suspended Assembly, appeared to offer the two governments an insurance policy against a DUP failure to define a credible alternative to the agreement.
Mr Trimble has apparently concluded, however, that any change in the Assembly's voting procedures would require "validation" by way of a further election.
A senior source in the Trimble camp said last night: "It (a rule change) simply is not viable as things stand at the moment. For us to conspire with nationalists and republicans to defy a unionist majority would be folly."
Speaking in Derry last night, Mr Trimble said of the political crisis: "The 'problem' is not the DUP's election victory but the inability or unwillingness of paramilitary-related parties to commit fully to the democratic process."
Addressing the Foyle Unionist Association's a.g.m., Mr Trimble said in such circumstances - while an examination of voting arrangements, the committee system or the formula for appointing an Executive "would be a worthwhile exercise if we had an Assembly" - it was "somewhat pointless otherwise".
He added: "What is the point of reviewing the rules and regulations if the Assembly is never going to sit because paramilitaries will not wind up their criminal activities? Frankly it is as if the Northern Ireland Office wishes to rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic after it has hit the iceberg."
Frank Millar analysis: page 12