DUP and UUP at odds over correspondence

DUP deputy leader, Peter Robinson today accused David Trimble of “snake-like surreptitious slithering” over his party's call for the UUP to publish its October statement in relation to the restoration of devolution with Sinn Féin in Government.

Mr Robinson's remarks follow recent correspondence between the UUP leader and his DUP counterpart, Ian Paisley over the possibility of a meeting to discuss the current state of unionism.

The main thrust of the argument is that the DUP wanted to concentrate the meeting on the precise terms of last October's failed Hillsborough deal, whilst the UUP sought to look forward to future options in the process.

Mr Robinson, said: "We asked for the publication of that one particular UUP October statement but instead his response was to offer a private one-to-one meeting with Dr Paisley at which he, Mr Trimble, would give his assessment of 'the position of other parties'.

"Firstly, Dr Paisley neither asked for, wanted nor needed Mr Trimble’s assessment of the position of 'other parties'. Secondly, Dr Paisley had asked Mr Trimble to reveal the position of the UUP not that of other parties. There is only one issue to which we ask Mr Trimble to respond – publish your October statement or justify your refusal to do so.

"Should Mr Trimble continue to draw a veil of secrecy over his intended October statement we would be entitled to conclude it was so damning that he is afraid of the public finding out what he was going to say and do."

The Upper Bann MP immediately hit back at Mr Robinson’s claims. He said: “In his initial letter of 20th April, Mr Paisley asked me to reveal to him 'the terms of the agreed sequence (between the UUP and the Republican Movement])’. I responded that, 'The only commitment we (the UUP) were prepared to offer to republicans was to return to the institutions and operate them in a wholehearted manner', if there were sufficient acts of completion. Further, I made it clear that I would be willing to share with the DUP, on a confidential basis, our assessment of the positions of other parties.

“Mr Paisley responded in abusive terms and referred to ‘inconsistency’ where there was none. For the sake of unionist unity, I thought it best to cut to the chase and offer to meet Mr Paisley with no preconditions and an open agenda.

“As I have had no response to my private invitation of talks on 5th May, I have decided to make it a public invitation and hope that any such discussions can be conducted in a positive frame of mind on the DUP’s part.”

It is unclear at present whether talks between the two parties will now go ahead. The UUP wish to have a private correspondence between their leader and Dr Paisley, however the DUP wish only to have discussions with their respective negotiating teams present.

(MB)