The governments now have to consider DUP demands for renegotiation of the accord, writes Frank Millar
The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, knew this New Year was likely to prove a difficult one in the politics of Northern Ireland. Barely two weeks in, their problems appear to be deepening.
The Irish Times reports this morning that the Ulster Unionist leader, Mr David Trimble, is set to reject proposed rule changes designed to override the DUP's veto and permit the early reinstatement of a power-sharing Executive. One consequence of this is that the two governments will have to consider much more seriously the DUP's demand for a wholesale renegotiation of the Belfast Agreement. Another is that Northern Ireland may well be facing into a protracted period of direct rule buttressed by the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Conference.
Neither government has formally proposed a rule change - that has been left to the Alliance leader, Mr David Ford, and the Progressive Unionist Party's sole Assembly member, Mr David Ervine. However the impression, fuelled by the Taoiseach's pre-Christmas interview with a French news agency, is that London and Dublin have been holding the possibility in reserve against the likelihood that Dr Paisley's party proves unable to engage the other parties in talks about a realistic or acceptable alternative to the Belfast Agreement.
Under the existing procedures the formula for nominating an Executive cannot be triggered until a majority of Assembly members designated "unionist" and "nationalist" have elected co-equal First and Deputy First Ministers. This obviously disadvantages the Alliance members who refuse to designate as either, and last April's British-Irish Joint Declaration identified the question of designation and voting procedures as issues for the forthcoming review of the agreement.
Moreover, since last November's election, both governments have made much of the fact that a majority overall in the Assembly supports the agreement - raising the question as to which majority should ultimately prevail.
The DUP's response would be that this is no question at all; that the Belfast Agreement was rooted in the principle of dual consent by a majority of both communities in Northern Ireland; and that on November 26th unionism's consent was finally and formally withdrawn.
However, some close to Mr Trimble have been prepared to argue this is not the case; that the respective majorities required to elect First and Deputy First Ministers was the result of an SDLP demand for protection against possible unionist abuse; and that the dual consent principle only really applied to the need for majorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic in the 1998 referendums.
Consequently, some pro-agreement unionists have entertained the idea of changing the procedures, possibly by building in a default mechanism whereby the smaller unionist party could claim the post of First Minister if the DUP refused to nominate candidates jointly for both positions as presently required.
Others incline to the Alliance Party's proposal that the need for cross-community endorsement be abandoned in favour of a simple weighted majority of 60 per cent or 65 per cent in the Assembly as a whole. And, technically at least, it seems clear that the British government, which bears responsibility for all Strand One or "internal" matters with the Northern Ireland parties, could legislate for a rule change empowering the pro-agreement majority and leaving the DUP, if it chose to remain there, in the cold.
However that little bit of realpolitik collides with the political reality all-too-clearly grasped by Mr Trimble and bluntly spelt out last night by a leading member of his camp. "It (a rule change) is simply not viable ... For us to conspire with nationalists and republicans to defy a unionist majority would be folly."
Confirming his expectation that Mr Trimble will shortly reject such a course, another friend said: "He's just not interested in being squeezed into office. I think he's absolutely clear that, to the people who voted, it would look like a swiz."
With the season of goodwill long gone - and never extended to him in the first place - the DUP will hardly award Mr Trimble any credits. Mr Peter Robinson, now poised in time to become the most significant and important figure in unionist politics, has always been contemptuous of the idea that a minority unionist party could sustain power-sharing against the wishes of the wider unionist electorate.
However, he (and his new colleague, Mr Jeffrey Donaldson) will be at least intrigued if Mr Trimble's reported decision emerges in the wider context of a general repositioning of the UUP in the aftermath of its election defeat. For, alongside the Alliance Party's published proposals for the review, they will surely find here further encouragement for their belief that the two governments, Sinn Féin and the SDLP will have to yield on their previous insistence that the agreement is non-negotiable.
Mr Trimble is expected to indicate his thinking on possible ways forward at an "away day" with his Assembly colleagues this weekend. However at least some of them are ahead of him, anticipating that the UUP leader will finally distance himself from existing commitments by the two governments, even holding out the possibility that, over time, the two unionist parties will find it necessary to work together in direct response to Sinn Féin's ascendancy within nationalism.
As one pro-agreement unionist previously loyal to Mr Trimble put it last night: "Pro and anti the agreement is not the issue now. There are new arguments out there and we have to move on.
"David has got to recognise that he is the leader of the opposition, not the leader of the unionist majority. And unionism as a whole will have to be happy with whatever deal eventually emerges."
Even given that, this former ally was not certain any attempt by Mr Trimble to reposition his party would carry conviction. Intriguingly, too - where Mr Donaldson's departure might have been assumed to strengthen Mr Trimble's position - he suggested it would release others from obligations of loyalty.
On Saturday Mr Trimble must begin the urgent task of persuading his party he can survive for a purpose.