UUP Conference: The following is an edited version of the leader's speech.
We meet in the aftermath of an American presidential election. Unlike any other party leader in the House of Commons, I made a point of publicly supporting the re-election of President George W. Bush, not least at the recent Oxford Union debate.
We are well aware of all the difficulties, but basically I think that President Bush was right. Bin Laden declared his war on the US in 1993. His first attempt to bring down the Twin Towers occurred the next year. The president of the day failed to respond effectively to the threat, thus building the Islamist belief that the US was weak and irresolute. That made essential a decisive response after 9/11.
With Bush in the White House, the world is a more hostile place for those who practise terrorism.
We meet also on the eve of a general election and of local council elections. What is at stake for unionism is our reputation for fairness and decency.
To an extent not grasped here, the DUP, in a House of Commons completely dominated by Labour MPs, are held in scarcely concealed contempt. Five years of their sourness will do unaccountable damage to the Union. Unionism cannot afford a representation that will make Gerry Adams appear good before the court of English public opinion.
But it is unlikely that the DUP would have got their head in front of us had they fought a simple "No" campaign as in 2001. What may have made the difference were the hints of a new pragmatism summed up in the "fair deal" slogan. Their manifesto, however, was a commitment-free zone without any specifics on what that deal might be. So afterwards, there was some interest in what new ideas the DUP might have.
That has been the big story of 2004. It is now clear that the DUP do not have a new big idea. They have not in fact proposed a new deal at all.
The party that ran away in 1997 and derided participation in talks in Hillsborough, Downing Street and Weston Park has followed the same trail, though this time including the scenic Leeds Castle, under the guardianship of the architect of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement. There the DUP negotiated with Sinn Féin. On that occasion it was through intermediaries, but it was negotiation all the same.
Of more significance are the two matters raised at Leeds Castle which are the ostensible reasons for the current deadlock.
The one institutional change they want is to split the joint ticket currently used to elect the First and the Deputy First Ministers. This would be of little practical consequence. This is merely stripping out one of the few cross-community provisions of the agreement to spare the blushes of a sectarian party.
Of more importance is the issue of accountability, where the legislation does not fully reflect the agreement. We believe the solution lies in greater collective responsibility. But I do not mind so much if a review gives the DUP cover for its increasingly explicit acceptance of the agreement.
There is, however, a very important issue that has hardly broken the surface: the devolution of policing and justice. You will recall the exaggerated attacks on us last year. We were accused of having already agreed to a Sinn Féin justice minister.
Gerry Kelly was mentioned.
In fact our position was that devolution was not possible as things stood; that confidence would have to be built, first by republicans explicitly supporting policing, going on the Policing Board and by their conduct there proving that they were now supporting law and order, and then by effectively ending the IRA as a private army.
We were simply not prepared to discuss the structures of devolution, let alone who would be the minister or ministers responsible.
By contrast, the DUP now say that devolution of policing is "no big move". Robinson and Dodds say that no one with a criminal conviction would be acceptable. A concession that any Shinner who had evaded justice could take charge! Adams apparently would be okay; de Brún, if she were still in the Assembly, likewise! What this year so far boils down to is that the DUP say they will share power with Sinn Féin in return for decommissioning and disbandment. This is an acceptance of our position. It validates our policy over the last six years.
They are talking of doing the same thing, and claim they will do it better.
It is all very well to make fun of the DUP's cack-handed first steps at negotiation. Others, however, must also bear a considerable share of the blame for the lack of progress.
When Sinn Féin arrived at Leeds Castle, the cry was ringing in their ears that they were the government's Stormont Fusiliers. I suspect that they had been unable to persuade their grassroots to make what they would regard as big sacrifices.
Like other parties, we do not know what republicans supposedly offered to Blair. I suspect the offer was more a bluff than anything else.
Blair should have nailed it down, but with characteristic optimism, he rushed at it. The DUP could have covered themselves by confronting republicans and insisting they give clear details. But rather than engage in serious negotiations, they hid behind the other issues mentioned earlier.
I did warn the DUP that they were letting republicans away in the smoke. Unfortunately, they did not listen. But that should not obscure the fact that the main responsibility lies with the government and republicans.
The post-Leeds talks have run out of steam. It is said that the government is preparing a paper to put before the parties. We have advised government that they first nail down republicans.
There must be genuine acts of completion that satisfactorily resolve decommissioning and paramilitary issues.
Without that prospect, there will be no progress. With it, there is something to do and we will be ready.
Whatever happens in the next few weeks, next year will be special, for it is our centenary. While the parliamentary party and constituency associations existed in the final decades of the 19th century, it was on March 5th, 1905 that the Ulster Unionist Council was founded.
Ulster is still British, thanks to generation after generation who understand that true loyalism means more than sectarianism.
We have been the main vehicle for Unionism for by far the greater part of the last 100 years because our core values reflect those of the Ulster-British people.
What are these values? Our party really is democratic. We are pluralist in our culture too. For us, unionism is not the same thing as Protestantism. We know the Union is in the best interests of all. But we accept difference. We accept other points of view. We want a Northern Ireland where everyone irrespective of religion, gender, race or lifestyle, can be comfortable and proud to call home.
So, when people in Ballymena cannot attend their place of worship, we stand with them. When people who come here in search of a better life are attacked and intimidated, we stand with them too.
And we don't call journalists we disagree with "Romanists". That's Ulster Unionism. Sectarianism is not in our DNA.
For us, Britishness is not just a flag too often waved to annoy others. It is a living, organic relationship with our fellow citizens elsewhere in the Kingdom. We are for a big United Kingdom, not just a little Ulster. Such Britishness is inclusive. Emerson Tennant, one of the MPs for Belfast in the mid-19th century, put it as follows:
'We wish to add to the glory of being British the distinction of being Irish.'
It is the historic achievement of this party that alone, unaided, constantly sniped at, we carried unionism through the time of threat to now. Yes, there have been some knocks along the way.
But the measure of our success is that for the two years after the collapse of the Assembly it is republicanism that has been in the dock, under pressure to move, and that during this political hiatus, the economy has continued to grow and the quality of social life has continued to improve. Indeed there is the sense that society is stabilising.
But there are dangers. The position of the republican movement is not stable. It is in the midst of a transition. But it has not yet completed that transition. In such a situation, you cannot mark time.
Will the Government's paper next week have a way out of this stalemate? Like me, you may be sceptical.
But this party will, as throughout its history, be ready to meet the challenge. Today, next week, and next May, we will present our positive alternative. We will be true to the heritage and values of this party.
Unionism, confident, responsible, persistent, seeking the best for Ulster and for the whole country.
A hundred years of service behind us, the next century before us, let us go forward together with pride.