Rival wings of the Ulster Unionist Party tonight urged each other to call a halt to their feud and force the cancellation of this weekend's crucial ruling council meeting.
As Ulster Unionists prepared to gather in Belfast next Saturday to debate disciplinary action against three MPs, former Stormont minister Mr Michael McGimpsey insisted it was "not too late" for rebel members to pull back from confrontation with the leadership.
However Mr McGimpsey and UUP leader Mr David Trimble were in turn urged to step back by withdrawing their disciplinary action against Mr Jeffrey Donaldson, Mr David Burnside and the Rev Martin Smyth.
Mr McGimpsey, a south Belfast UUP councillor, argued: "There is absolutely no need for this meeting. "All the three MPs have to do is resume the whip and agree to abide with the council's decisions. It's not rocket science.
"By following this course of action there is no basis to convene the Ulster Unionist Council. The matter ends there. The issue is closed.
"If this is done we can all work together and put the spotlight back where it belongs - on republicans who must stand down and dump arms."
Mr Donaldson, Mr Burnside and UUP president, Mr Smyth angered supporters of David Trimble in June by resigning the whip at Westminster in a dispute over party policy. The MPs were protesting against the party's refusal to completely reject peace process proposals in May from the British and Irish Governments.
In particular, they objected to London and Dublin's proposal that an Irish Government nominee should serve on a commission which would monitor paramilitary ceasefires and whether parties were honouring the Belfast Agreement.
A second disciplinary action has since been launched but has been put on hold pending the outcome of Saturday's Ulster Unionist Council meeting.
Responding to Mr McGimspey, UUP honorary secretary Ms Arlene Foster said he needed to realise his argument could "work both ways.
"As things stand there is a need for Saturday's UUC meeting because the leadership have gone down the aggressive route of disciplinary action against Jeffrey, Martin and David," she replied.
"If the leadership were to drop the disciplinary action instead of putting it on hold, then there would be no need for the council meeting. So the argument works both ways."