By John Spain 

THE elusive, ultimate prize of a final settlement in the North never seemed so close as it did over the weekend. Yet now, just a couple of days later, no one seems sure just how far away it may be. 

Never before had the Irish and British governments, and the Northern parties, come so close to making the conclusive breakthrough as they did at the talks at Leeds Castle. The impossible had been achieved, we were told. 

The IRA was agreeing to total decommissioning and to disband and disappear and it was all going to happen over a relatively short timetable. By Christmas, the IRA would be gone forever. 

At least that was what British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern were saying when they emerged after the talks. That is what they had told Ian Paisley and his Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) during the negotiations, based on assurances they had been given by Sinn Fein. 

Yet, having appeared to achieve what Unionists of all shades — and all democratic parties in Ireland North and South — have been seeking for so long, on Saturday the talks broke up without agreement because of a dispute about structures in the next Northern administration. 

This seemed unbelievable. How could a relatively minor matter like that be allowed to scupper the ultimate deal that would see the end of the IRA? 

Surely, after decades of bloodshed, getting rid of the IRA was more important than anything else? How could anyone let such a prize slip from their hands? 

Most ordinary people could not understand why the talks had collapsed at the last moment and so near total success, when the most difficult problem — the IRA — had been solved. And the frustration of the two prime ministers was clear. Through gritted teeth, Ahern and Blair told the media assembled at Leeds Castle that the deal was almost done and that they not only hoped but expected to settle the remaining issues this side of Christmas. 

But the obvious question was, if they were really so close why was Ahern being so cautious? Why not sort it out this week? Everyone knows that the longer it drags on, the more difficult it becomes because people have more time to question what is really on offer. 

Sinn Fein were adopting an I-told-you-so posture. They had delivered, they said, and now Paisley was finding yet another excuse for refusing to share power. 

But was it really that simple? Neutral observers struggled to decide whether the DUP’s problems with the structures at Stormont were just an excuse to avoid sharing power or were real and genuine difficulties. 

What the DUP was saying was that there were flaws in the way the last power-sharing administration had worked and that they wanted these sorted out before agreeing to be part of the next administration. This was essential, they said, if the next administration is to be effective and is to last. 

The DUP said that, for example, the ministers in the next administration in the North would have to be accountable instead of having total power in their departments. They gave the example of Sinn Fein’s Bairbre de Brun who was health minister in the last administration under First Minister David Trimble and who built a hospital in her own electoral area against the advice of him, of her Cabinet colleagues and of her civil servants. 

The DUP seemed to be saying that the ministers would have to be accountable to the first minister and/or to the Assembly as a whole. Since Unionists will be in a majority in the Assembly and since the next first minister will probably be Ian Paisley or his deputy Peter Robinson, this sounded to Sinn Fein like an attempt to resurrect the Unionist veto. 

That would not be acceptable to anyone, particularly Ahern, who warned that the DUP would not be allowed to renegotiate the Good Friday Agreement which includes detailed arrangements for power-sharing in a Northern administration, both in the Cabinet and the Assembly. 

What Ahern was saying was that the basic power-sharing structure that had been put in place under the Good Friday Agreement could not be altered, but that some of its workings could be revised to make improvements as long as the principle of power-sharing continued to be underpinned. 

Discussions along those lines are taking place this week to see if the DUP’s concerns can be addressed. Precisely what will satisfy them is still unclear, and there is quite a lot of confusion about exactly what they want. Even Ahern seemed to be unsure about all the details. 

The way the Irish and British cabinets work is that the prime minister is Primus Inter Pares (first among equals). On all significant matters ministers bring their proposals to the Cabinet table and must win majority support. The government then assumes collective responsibility for the decisions taken. 

That is the way the North’s Cabinet should work. But it’s a bit more complicated up there because of the requirement for cross-community support. These complicated power-sharing rules are detailed in the Good Friday Agreement, and clearly there has to be a balance between giving ministers from both sides unfettered power and yet having collective responsibility. 

Whether or not all of this is a genuine concern on the DUP’s part, rather than just a delaying tactic, should become clear in the next few days. The other way of looking at it is that the DUP is just playing for time to see how solid the IRA offer is.

The fact is that nothing has been written down so far by the IRA. The two prime ministers are going on assurances that were given by Sinn Fein. 

Such assurances in the past have been open to wide variations in interpretation, to put it mildly. So whether we like it or not, the DUP has good grounds for being cautious. 

Very few people here take the more malign view, as articulated by some in Sinn Fein, that this hold-up is evidence that the DUP does not want to share power with Sinn Fein under any circumstances, and is trying to get back to majority Unionist rule by the back door. 

The truth is that the DUP and Paisley — a man with limited time — are desperate to get into power as quickly as possible. But they are not prepared to share power with Sinn Fein on the basis of vague assurances by the two prime ministers that the IRA will be wound up. As Ian Paisley put it, he is too long in the tooth to fall for that. 

The DUP wants solid, verifiable evidence that the IRA is wrapping up. But once that is available and once they have been reassured about the fairness of the Cabinet structure for the North, they will have no reason to delay. If they do delay then, Unionists of all types will be asking why Paisley will not agree a deal which offers such a wonderful opportunity to close down the IRA for good. 

But why would the DUP hesitate when they can go down in history as the party that pushed the IRA into disbanding? It’s a cruel irony that the IRA are preparing to deliver to Paisley what they refused to deliver to David Trimble for so long. It’s a case of the extremes dividing up the spoils, having cynically demolished the moderates in John Hume’s SDLP and David Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party along the way. 

The real reason the IRA are prepared to wind up now, of course, is that they are well on the way to achieving their aim. From here on in, the existence of the private army is likely to hinder Sinn Fein rather than help them. 

The aim of Sinn Fein/IRA is supposed to be the achievement of being in government north and south by 2016, the centenary of the 1916 Rising. Shortly they will be in government in the North. If they are quick enough about disbanding the IRA, they could even be in government with Fianna Fail in the south in a few years. 

What’s next? Did I hear someone say President Adams?