As I snapped shut my briefcase and prepared to leave Peter Robinson’s office in East Belfast I couldn’t help observing that at least we’d got through the whole interview. With the characteristic blend of condescension, defensiveness and dry humour which he’d exhibited since before the interview began, he quipped, “despite you trying to put me in a dog collar!” Before I left the Democratic Unionist Party headquarters, Robinson also felt obliged to tell me that I am naive to believe “that the political situation in Northern Ireland really has anything to do with religion.”

Ironically Peter Robinson himself is Deputy Leader of a political party which is dominated by one man, the Reverend Ian Paisley – and which as a result is inextricably linked to Paisley’s base as a Free Presbyterian, in the Church he founded in 1951. Indeed, the party itself started life as the Protestant Unionist Party, which Paisley formed in 1966, and, five years later, evolved into the D.U.P.

In his award-winning book, Ireland: 1912-1985, Joe Lee, Professor of History at University College Cork, describes Ian Paisley as “a rabid anti-Catholic” and quotes an earlier commentator who suggests that Paisley “in the scope and depth of his endeavours had developed religio-political paranoia beyond the wildest dreams of his unionist contemporaries.”

Meanwhile Reg Empey, the former Official Unionist Lord Mayor of Belfast, suggested to me in another interview that Paisley’s hard-line Protestantism was a significant factor blocking the Democratic Unionist Party from participating in inter-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland. But then the 163,246 voters who recently elected Ian Paisley for the fourth time in the European Elections, undoubtedly perceive him as a defender of the “one great faith”, that form of Presbyterianism that stretches back to Martin Luther and Calvin.

There is also, of course, the not-inconsiderable detail that, in Northern Ireland right now, death can be the price one pays simply for being perceived as either a Catholic or a Protestant.

JOE JACKSON: When it comes to the question of self-definition which is more important to you – Protestantism or unionism?

PETER ROBINSON: I’m glad, first of all, that you allow me self-definition, because too many people are attempting to define each other’s identity. I believe that both nationalists and unionists should be allowed to define for themselves what their identity is. But, in answer to your question, I’m both. I’m a unionist in terms of my politics and Protestant in terms of my beliefs. But from the point of view of being an Ulster Protestant unionist, there’s a complexity to that identity because we are British by way of nationality, yet we live on the island of Ireland. We are Ulster in terms of our local identity, but, as I say, Protestant in terms of our religious beliefs. So it’s not a straightforward form of identity at all.

You’re not a member of Dr. Ian Paisley’s Free Presbyterian Church. What difference does that make to you, politically?

It doesn’t make any difference, politically. I have every respect for Dr. Paisley and his religious beliefs. But I am a member of the Pentecostal Church and I don’t seek to use my Church position for political reasons.

Nevertheless Reg Empey has suggested that because you are not part of the Free Presbyterian Church the party’s power brokers might never allow you to become leader of the D.U.P.

People outside the party often misunderstand the nature of the party. Happily, there is no vacancy and therefore it’s not a matter of contention. The party voted for me as Deputy L eader and the last time that election was contested it was against a Free Presbyterian. The fact that I became Deputy Leader could tell you something that might surprise Mr. Empey, at least.

And what is your response to suggestions that the current block, in relation to the DUP’s involvement in inter-party talks on Northern Ireland, stem partly from Ian Paisley’s hard-line Protestantism and that won’t be broken until he retires, or is replaced?

People should study their words a bit more closely. In the folly of that suggestion is the idea that somehow Ian Paisley has imprisoned within the political party, people who don’t think as he does. And that, in some way, if he wasn’t there, that they would have different politics. They are in a political party because they share political views with Ian Paisley. Therefore the assumption that, if Ian Paisley wasn’t there people would think differently, has no foundation.

Yet there is the perception that Ian Paisley’s political views are heavily influenced by his being, what one historian calls, “a rabid anti-Catholic” and that this extends to the D.U.P. Is that perception true, or false?

The party isn’t anti-Catholic. But that is a popular myth amongst Catholics in the Press, I suspect. Yet, it’s not a view that is held by anyone with any credibility. And anybody that looks at Ian Paisley’s record will know that, in politics, he is far from anti-Catholic. He treats every person in his constituency as being equally important and there is no complaint about how he deals with the Catholic community in terms of politics. The propositions we put forward in the talks process, far from being anti-Catholic, bore all the hallmarks of the principles of Protestantism, which is recognising that everybody is entitled to their own religious belief, and believing in civil and religious liberty for all.

Nonetheless, many of Ian Paisley’s statements over at least the last 25 years would seem to sharply define him as anti-Catholic. Particularly, say, his description of the Pope as “the Anti-Christ” a comment you also made in your last Hot Press interview. That hardly recognises the right of Catholics to believe in the Pope.

Take that up with the Archbishop of Canterbury, perhaps. And maybe Archbishop Eames might like to explain it as well. These are the doctrines of Protestant Churches, which Ian Paisley is repeating.

But when you repeat the charge that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, aren’t you slapping the faces of Catholics?

In that last interview, you will see that what I clearly put out was that these views were the views of the main established Protestant Churches. So if you want to blame somebody, speak to Robin Eames, the moderator of the Presbyterian Church, or whoever else you wish.

Do you see the Pope as the, or as an, anti-Christ?

I think, an anti-Christ. What is anybody who puts himself forward in the same terms as the Pope does? He is clearly usurping the power of Christ, and the position of Christ and, to that extent, he is.

That said, you share many of the Pope’s beliefs – which could be said to be anti-Christian – such as interpreting the scriptures as describing homosexuality as “unnatural.”

Of course it is. There can’t be the slightest doubt that it isn’t a natural act. I take it ill that these people set themselves up as being the arbiters of these matters. The Supreme Moral Arbiter is Almighty God. And he has decreed that homosexuality is unnatural. That’s the end of the matter. It’s not open to discussion.

Where did Almighty God decree so? And what, therefore is your response to the ruling of the European Courts when they decree that the equal rights of homosexuals should be acknowledged in all respects.

I’m sure the European Court is a very important body but I somehow don’t put it on the same scale as the God of all Creation. And although I thought you came here today to talk politics – as I am a politician – I’ll certainly give you chapter and verse for where the Scripture says homosexuality is unnatural. After the interview.

And you say the Scripture’s position on this is definitive, that it’s not open to debate, or discussion.

Of course it is definitive and that’s not a matter you should be in the least bit surprised about.

You’re saying to Christians in the gay community that there is no way to interpret the scripture’s position on their sexual preference other than to see themselves as unnatural?

That’s right. But I would say again that you came to me to do a political interview. You’ve done nothing thus far other than talk about theological matters. Now I’m not a church leader. If you want to talk to me about political matters, let’s do that! I’m a politician.

Surely religion is one of the core causes of the continuing struggle in Northern Ireland?

Not that I’m aware of. I thought we had a political conflict in Northern Ireland.

Which surely has been defined, historically as a conflict between Protestants and Catholics and/or unionists and nationalists. The two terms are normally seen as being inter-changeable or at least linked.

I can’t find any argument more ridiculous than the one you’re putting forward. Do you really think that anybody out there on the streets is being shot because of their views on homosexuality or because of the interpretation they might put on scriptural quotations?

Loyalist paramilitares certainly seem to be shooting and killing Catholics simply because they live in Catholic areas of Belfast, rather than because of their political affiliations.

I have to tell you that more Protestants have died in Northern Ireland, but maybe they don’t count.

Of course they count. But I think you are minimising the idea that the divide between Catholics and Protestants is a key element in the conflict in Northern Ireland.

So, do you also think the solution to our problems is to get something sorted out about theology?

In terms of the perception of the D.U.P being rabidly anti-Catholic, I don’t think it is an unimportant issue.

And I don’t think getting a solution is the least bit relevant to what a person’s interpretation of theological matters is. And you know exactly what it is you’re up to. You’re attempting to reinforce your own prejudice against the Democratic Unionist Party and reinforce the labelling you do, of the Democratic Unionist Party.

Not at all. As I said to you before the interview, I’d like to try to explore the question of unionist identity and what it means at this point in time – and to do that I must present oppositional perspectives.

I’m a politician. I’m a member of Parliament. Ask me questions about politics, if you please. You came to do a political interview. If you have a political question to ask, ask it. If you haven’t, then we’ll terminate the interview. If you want to ask theological questions, go and ask a theologian! If you want to ask a political question, you’ve got a politician in front of you.

I do have one last question to ask in this area, which relates to the fact that you once claimed that, when you attended court hearings in Dundalk, after the Clontibret incident, you took guidance from Genesis 28, Verse 15, in which God is quoted as saying: “And behold I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places wither thou goest and will bring thee again into this land: for I will not leave thee until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.” That was a political action directly influenced by scriptural text but –

(cuts across) I hope I take guidance from the Bible on everything I do. The Bible is the word of God. If one is a Christian, one lives by the commands of Christ.

My question is that when you involve yourself in actions such as the Clontibret incident, where two Gardai were injured, couldn’t that be seen as an abuse of the Bible?

I did violence to no one. I was there to observe what was taking place and didn’t have to run, because I was an observer. And I wasn’t found guilty of doing violence to anyone and all charges in relation to that were dropped.

Nonetheless, the incident led to what the Sunday Express described at the time as this perception of Peter Robinson associating with “Protestant thugs”, a perception which may persist, in certain areas.

Anyone is entitled to look at me any way they wish. I’m not involved with “Protestant thugs”. The people of Northern Ireland don’t elect representatives who are involved with “Protestant thugs.”

What about your associations with Ulster Resistance, which was originally formed by Dr. Paisley and yourself? In a Hot Press interview last year, Gerry Adams suggested that they helped distribute the arms that were used in the Milltown cemetery attack on republicans.

Then, for you, it must be true, if Gerry Adams has said it?

You are misinterpreting my question again – which may be either instinctive or defensive. The fact that Gerry Adams said it doesn’t make it true. But as those allegations were made in print, I put them to you, to enable you to address the subject.

I can’t address anything when there is no substance in it. I can’t speak about what happened to the association after our associations with it came to an end. I’ve heard nothing of it. I don’t believe it’s active. It’s never claimed any activity in recent events in Northern Ireland, so why drag it up now?

Because the SDLP politician, Dr. Brian Feeney, did once call for the proscription of Ulster Resistance and claimed D.U.P. politicians should be investigated in relation to their links with the organisation.

He was wrong. The links were broken. Dr. Paisley made a public statement on the issue so it’s not a matter that is open to dispute.

So are you saying there are no links between Dr. Ian Paisley and yourself and loyalist paramilitaires?

Firstly, I don’t think Ulster Resistance is still in existence. And in terms of paramilitary organisations there are no links between the Democratic Unionist Party, Dr. Paisley or myself and any paramilitary organisation.

Is the DUP’s rejection of the Downing Street Declaration based largely in the fact that it was originally heavily influenced by the Hume-Adams talks?

My objections to the Downing Street Declaration go much further than its parentage being the Hume-Adams talks. My objection is that the most fundamental issue in Northern Ireland is the issue of self-determination. As far as I’m concerned, the people of Northern Ireland have the sole and separate right to self-determination.That’s the principle that is enshrined in my political beliefs.

Surely The Downing Street Declaration acknowledges that right to self-determination.

The Downing Street Declaration gives away that right to self-determination to the people of the island of Ireland alone, then qualifies the means by which that self-determination is to be exercised. I don’t accept that. And I believe that those unionists who have acquiesced in this have made a fundamental error and weakened, very considerably, the unionist position. And I maintain that any agreement signed between Dublin and London is not binding to me. I am only bound by agreements that are signed by me, and the unionist community in Northern Ireland.

The Joint Declaration categorically states there will be no constitutional change in Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people.

You’re right. On a number of occasions in the Declaration, reference is made to consent. Happily, Mr Reynolds has defined that for us and indicated that it only refers to the final act of severance, so that you can live in a quasi-United Ireland but until the final legal act of hand-over is to be signed, your consent is neither asked for, nor is it to be granted. Indeed, the most recent leaks refer to the “new arrangements” that have been agreed between the new governments. In those, it is interesting to see that the new North/South structures don’t require the consent of the unionist community because they are going to be carried out by the two governments. So much for ‘consent’.

Surely part of the reason for this is that, unlike the Official Unionists for example, your party refuses to engage in inter-party talks about the future of Northern Ireland. Wouldn’t the people you represent be better served if you joined talks and clarified your position that way rather than endlessly saying ‘no’?

The people I represent would be better represented if there were talks that their elected leaders could participate in. But I’m not going to go into a talks process where the outcome is already settled by the nature of the agenda, where the principles enshrined in the Downing Street Declaration – which I don’t accept – will be governing the talks process.

So, how could the agenda change in a way that will make the talks process acceptable to the D.U.P?

The agenda doesn’t have to be specific. During the period 1985-1986 the government determined that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was there, and there to stay. And they asked us to enter into talks when they found that people weren’t supporting it. We said we weren’t prepared to go into talks on the basis of the Anglo Irish Agreement but that if they were to set it aside we would enter talks. And we made exactly the same offer to John Major the last time we met him, saying “set aside the Anglo Irish Agreement, set aside the Downing Street Declaration, let us go in with a clean sheet, without these betrayals in front of us, as being the parameters of any agreement and then we’ll sit down and talk.” He wasn’t prepared to do that. “The Declaration has to be the foundation stone for any agreement” was his terminology and that is not acceptable to people of the unionist community. They voted on the issue only a few months ago.

So you stand by your claim that Jim Molyneaux has sold-out unionists to Sinn Fein and the IRA?

I believe the Official Unionists gave life to the Downing Street Declaration by their acquiesence in it. I believe the Downing Street Declaration endorsed the IRA, endorsed the most dangerous and malign principle – which is that there should be a pay-off for murderers and gunmen. And concessions have already been made, along these lines, in the Downing Street Declaration.

The Official Unionists, and the Irish and British governments have indicated that talks will go ahead with or without the D.U.P.

I think they will finally judge that on the basis of how comfortable the Official Unionist Party feel without the Democratic Unionist Party there. And, when I say that there are Official Unionists who will not go down the next stage of the road, in terms of the talks, what I mean is that they will attempt to change their party’s policy. But let me deal with this issue a little more. There seems to be the assumption that if London and Dublin concoct something we are, in some way, obliged to go along with it. I start from the principle of the union. The Act of Union of 1800 requires Northern Ireland to be governed on exactly the same footing as any other part of the United Kingdom. I recognise that, for good or ill, there may be proposals as to why Northern Ireland should be governed in some way different from the rest of the United Kingdom. But the Act of Union is a contract that binds Northern Ireland and binds Great Britain. And if, for whatever reasons, there is to be a change in the way Northern Ireland is to be governed, it requires more than just the support of John Major, even more than the support of the British Government – it requires the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.

Are you trying to say that Britain is locked into this arrangement permanently?

That is not to say that the British Government can’t say ‘we are terminating that contract’ but, if they do, they cannot determine that, having terminated that contract, that Northern Ireland has to behave in a certain way. The Act of Union is a contract, and, as such, both parties must decide how it should be terminated.

Patrick Mayhew once said “many people believe we would not want to release Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. To be entirely honest with you, we would – with pleasure”, though he later took back that latter phrase. Do you think this sums up the British Government’s attitude to Northern Ireland?

Yes. And that, is also effectively said in the Downing Street Declaration. And I notice that when Albert Reynolds was penning his clarification document to the IRA in that big spread in The Irish News, he referred to the specific comment made by John Major in the Downing Street Declaration, that they had “no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland”. When you have a government saying ‘we are not interested in Northern Ireland’, there are clear signals the people in Northern Ireland need to see and read.

The Official Unionist Party has suggested that Ian Paisley and the DUP simplify the questions that relate to Articles 2 & 3 by demanding “they must go.”

There are about six articles in the Constitution of the Irish Republic that need to be amended. So, to do the job in a way that would be satisfactory to unionists in order to remove the territorial claim, there are a series of changes that are required. I’m one of those unionists who has no complaint that the Constitution of the Irish republic could incorporate an aspiration towards a United Ireland. People have every right to aspire towards a united Ireland. I suppose the difference is that I don’t mind being wooed, but I hate being raped. And that probably is the difference between an aspiration towards a United Ireland and a territorial claim. I’ve no problem sitting down to discuss key matters like this but not, as I say, when talks require me to accept principles which are unacceptable to me. That’s why I say, set those agreements aside and let’s get down to the relationships, and issues that everybody agrees have to be dealt with.

Can you envisage any situation where the D.U.P. would sit down in talks that included representatives of Sinn Fein, such as Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness?

No.

What if the IRA calls a cease-fire?

If the IRA calls a cease-fire, from a tactical point of view it would be a clever move, on their part. They have already extracted a series of concessions because of their violence and if they decide that by a tactical pause in the violence they can extract more concessions, I’ve no doubt that’s what they will do. But that’s all it will be, a tactical move.

What would make such a move more than purely tactical in your eyes?

Everybody realises that if they are wanting to be clever, they would have to have a cease fire for more than three months. Three months puts Reynolds under the pressure of bringing them into his national forum, which he refers to in the Downing Street Declaration. More than three months puts pressure on the British Government as to whether they talk to them, or not. And while I know that both those governments are saying that a cease-fire wouldn’t be sufficient to bring them into the political process, the British Government did tell us, after all, that there were no contacts with the IRA and when it was revealed that there were, they managed to redefine this as “channels of communications.” So, while they are telling us now that a cease-fire wouldn’t bring Sinn Fein into the political process, I’m sure they’ll redefine that as well.

And do you think Albert Reynolds will yield to internal party pressures to bring Sinn Fein into the political process, even on the strength of a three month cease-fire?

I don’t think he’ll “yield” to any pressure. I think he’ll be dying to do it. Because he has been giving the IRA a leg-up throughout the whole process. He’s the one that persuaded John Major to buy off the IRA, with the Downing Street Declaration. It wasn’t addressed to unionists, it had nothing to do with unionists. And Reynolds’ pedigree on these issues is fairly public. First of all there is his willingness to embrace the SDLP/IRA process; his willingness to act as a broker for that process and his willingness to sign up to an agreement which incorporated concessions directly to the IRA. There also was his willingness, outside of that Declaration, to make concessions to the IRA in the removal of the (Section 31) ban and encouraging Americans to have Mr. Adams as their guest. All of this would indicate that he is on board as far as the IRA is concerned.

Nationalists seem to be willing to move in order to accommodate the needs of unionists yet you, and your party, seem to find it virtually impossible to even recognise nationalist needs, much less change to accommodate them. Surely that’s the real logjam in this situation.

Where is your evidence of nationalists making such an accommodation?.

It was highlighted in recent interview I did with the ex- Fianna Fail politician Bobby Molloy, who suggested that when Jack Lynch originally said to him “we must accommodate unionist needs” he saw it as a betrayal of republicanism but now he realises that sensitivity to the unionist situation is the only way forward.

I congratulate you, first of all, in being able to say that with a straight face. I follow events in Northern Ireland very closely and am still looking for this ‘sensitivity’ to the unionist position, about which you and Bobby Molloy speak. They have been standing on the neck of the unionist community, ignored the wishes of the unionist community and have been prepared to bypass the unionist community. And they, as I have emphasised today, are prepared to make all sorts of concessions to bring Sinn Féin, who represent less than 10% of the people of Northern Ireland into the talks process, whereas they announce that if the D.U.P. doesn’t come under their rules, the D.U.P. will be left behind. And we got 30% of the vote. That certainly shows the kind of ‘sensitivity’ that your politicians have for the unionist position in Northern Ireland, doesn’t it?

And what about the question of your ‘sensitivity’ to the needs of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland?

During the talks process the structures that were advocated by the D.U.P. built into the system rights for, not only individuals, but for minorities – constitutional minorities at that. It ensured a refereeing system for any future government in Northern Ireland. And I can honestly say there is nothing in me that seeks to have for myself what I am not prepared to give to my Catholic neighbour. The kind of structures that will be lasting in Northern Ireland will be structures that people can identify with. On the other hand, if you build up structures that people don’t believe are their own, they will fall. The only defence constitutional politicians will have against the men of violence is if the structures that the men of violence are attempting to bring down, are structures that people want, identify with and believe are theirs. That’s the way to defeat terrorism. And those are the structures that will be as important to the Catholic community in Northern Ireland as they will be to the Protestants.

Would you not see Dick Spring as having a different position on Northern Ireland, than Albert Reynolds?

If he has, he’s a prisoner of the government and is acting in accordance with government policy.

If the IRA call a cease-fire, will you call on loyalist paramilitaries to do the same?

No. I would call on loyalist paramilitaries and anybody else who is engaged in violence to stop it now – irrespective of what the IRA may do. I don’t believe in the IRA setting anybody’s agenda for them. But, being candid with you, I would have to say that the degree of condemnation of paramilitary activity, from the loyalist community is very much less than it was five, ten years ago.

Why is that?

What we on the political front must accept is that politics is judged not to work in Northern Ireland. There is the sense that unionists can win elections, but it doesn’t change anything because nobody is listening to them. We can win arguments but it doesn’t affect the British government’s attitude. Events occur independent of the wishes of the people and as soon as you set aside those democratic principles – as the British government has done – then people ask themselves, if democracy doesn’t work, what does? Violence does.

So you are saying that violence works.

Violence has consistently worked in Northern Ireland. Violence has brought every political change that has occurred over these last 20, 30 years. The reality is that violence has worked for the IRA and it works very effectively. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is a response to violence, the Downing Street Declaration is, as I say, directly addressed to the men of violence. And concessions come because governments form their policies in order to pursuade people to move away from violence but, essentially, it’s the same thing. They are making concessions to violence.

Isn’t that what Seamus Mallon described as making “quasi-excuses” for loyalist violence?

I don’t think that any violence can be excused. But I can certainly see why people are turning away from politics, because it’s not allowed to work.

There was one newspaper report, some years ago, which suggested you “rejoiced” when certain IRA members were killed.

I haven’t the slightest idea what that refers to, but in terms of condemnation of violence, I condemn the killing of every individual. But in terms of sympathy I have sympathy for those who are innocent victims of terrorism, and very little sympathy for those who blow themselves up, or those who have been involved in terrorism. To get back to theology, as the scriptures make it clear to us, those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Do you live in fear of that happening to you?

Fear of losing my own life that way? Never think of the issue at all. I don’t think it is going to profit me any to consider whether I’m going to be attacked or not. To go back to theology, I’m content to leave it in the Almighty’s hands. I’m a Calvinist. I believe these matters are predestined.

You also have said that if someone does attack you they will find that you are “prepared to take action against them.” Does that still stand?

If I have the opportunity to, of course I will. And I am entitled under scriptural, moral and the law itself to do that.

Some would say the scriptural position is “Thou Shalt Not Kill”?

“Thou shalt do no murder” is the scriptural line on this. If not you would be saying God was a hypocrite because God sent armies out to do battle and if people weren’t to kill, what on earth was he sending them out to battle for? There are circumstances in war, in defence, where it is permissible to kill.

In this context, could I repeat my earlier question in relation to what, exactly, is your response to the fact that in Northern Ireland people obviously are killed because of their religious beliefs?

I think the killing of Catholics, like the killing of Protestants, simply because they are Catholics or Protestants, must be the most objectionable type of murder there is. Furthermore, the fact that somebody, simply because they ascribe to a belief, becomes a “legitimate target” is something that defies the whole basis of Protestantism and the whole basis of Bible Protestantism at that.

Could the circumstances of war that would legitimise, say, mass murder include be the imposition of the outcome of the Joint Declaration on Northern unionists? In that a situation in which the unionist response be “fight or die?”

I don’t believe that is the only way to defy the Government’s proposals. But, in general, in terms of defending rights and liberties, countries throughout the world, and throughout history have been prepared to defend themselves. There are people in Northern Ireland who would be no less willing but I think there are other methods that can be employed to show that we will resist any attempt by the British Government – together, or separately from the government of the Irish Republic – on the question of imposing any future on the people of Northern Ireland which isn’t acceptable to them.

In one of your booklets you use the quote “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of slavery?/Forbid it, Almighty God/ I know not what course others may take, but as for me/Give me liberty or give me death.” Is that still your position?

There is no way the unionist community will accept the Dublin government having an executive role in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Full Stop. It just would not be allowed to happen.

The unionist community would rather die?

They would not accept it. And the strength of the unionist community is that they are a majority and they have a right to self-determination. Those who seek to take away their right of self determination and seek to impose upon a majority their view – they are the ones that are acting without right.

So are you again reiterating your belief that there could be a Civil War in Ireland?

I think the Government is edging us towards that, yes. But I don’t think I said it before.

You did, during your last Hot Press interview seven years ago.

I think we’re quite a few steps closer to it than we were at that stage.

Is that not just scare-mongering on your behalf. After all, white supremacists in South Africa claimed there would be civil riots, social unrest, bloodshed if power was given to the black majority. That didn’t happen.

If I didn’t warn people about what I see as being a likely scenario, I would not have lived up to the most sacred trust that is placed in a politician. I can see all of the ingredients that make up Civil War being played out by the setting aside of the democratic process in Northern Ireland, the elevation of men of terror, the refusal to accept that the majority have rights. All of these elements are ingredients which necessarily force people to set aside democracy as a way of making change. For example, what percentage of killings in Northern Ireland were attributable to loyalist paramilitares before 1985? Less than 10%. Today it’s over 60%. And if you look at the period from 1985, which involves the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Downing Street Declaration, you will see the increasing marginalisation of the unionist community, the alienation, the estrangement and the fact that we have a community without hope for any future in any democratic terms. And a future without hope is a dangerous community.

The nationalist community would obviously agree with that latter comment. They would probably reply that the democratic process in Northern Ireland has been subverted throughout history by unionist rule. So where does that leave all the warring factions in this, the 25th anniversary of the beginning of the current phase of “the Troubles” – still in the same corners endlessly fighting the same battle?

Though I’ve no reason to make any defence of the Official Unionist Party’s governing of Ireland for 50 years, the facts are that even if I was a nationalist and believed what you are saying I would be very concerned about exchanging the perceived alienation of the nationalist community for the alienation of the unionist community. Of exchanging the perceived denial of liberties to the nationalist people to the denial of rights and liberties to the unionist community. And I don’t think we have advanced a solution if we simply say ‘well, we didn’t like what the unionists did when they controlled Northern Ireland, so they can have a little bit of their own medicine now’. That’s effectively what’s being said in the scenario of which you speak. And I don’t think that’s going to resolve the problem. That just means you have different terrorists, different opposition politicians, a different complexion to the criticisms of the system. And no end to the political problems in Northern Ireland.”