:00:00. > :00:24.Hello and welcome to a special edition of The View.
:00:25. > :00:29.Clr Tonight, Richard Haas on the frustration of not succeeding in
:00:30. > :00:33.getting the five main parties to sign up to his New Year's Eve deal.
:00:34. > :00:36.In his first interview since his return to New York, the former
:00:37. > :00:38.diplomat accuses some Executive parties of being "unrealistic in the
:00:39. > :00:46.extreme". The critical factor here will be the
:00:47. > :00:49.willingness and ability of the five parties to work together and for
:00:50. > :00:55.each of the parties, individually, to essentially step up to the need
:00:56. > :01:02.to make some big decisions and essentially to compromise. Not on
:01:03. > :01:06.core principles but on preferences. So, is there a willingness to reach
:01:07. > :01:09.consensus or are we facing an indefinite stalemate? We'll hear the
:01:10. > :01:11.views of our Political Editor, Mark Devenport, and commentators
:01:12. > :01:14.Fionnuala O'Connor and Alex Kane. And you can, of course, follow the
:01:15. > :01:20.programme on Twitter. That's @BBCtheview.
:01:21. > :01:24.Six months of work, countless meetings, hundreds of submissions
:01:25. > :01:27.and days of feverish negotiation in the countdown to a December 31st
:01:28. > :01:33.deadline, but ultimately the talks chaired by Richard Haass ended in
:01:34. > :01:37.disappointment. Tonight, on this special edition of The View, I'll be
:01:38. > :01:43.talking to Dr Haass for the first time since he flew out of Northern
:01:44. > :01:46.Ireland. We'll hear that interview in just a moment but first here's
:01:47. > :01:49.our Political Editor, Mark Devenport. Be a embarrassing
:01:50. > :01:53.failure, or a difficult piece of work still in progress? As dawn
:01:54. > :01:57.approached t became clear that the New Year's Eve talks wouldn't be
:01:58. > :02:03.another Good Friday or St Andrew's agreement. Some parties harboured
:02:04. > :02:07.major reservations about the Haass proposals but Sinn Fein was prepared
:02:08. > :02:11.to accept it, warts and all. Our negotiating team is recommending to
:02:12. > :02:17.the Sinn Fein Council that we believe that there is a basis for a
:02:18. > :02:22.deal in the proposals put forward. They are not perfect. The failure to
:02:23. > :02:28.achieve more on flags, angered Alliance which saw a were posed
:02:29. > :02:33.18-month commission as a delaying tactic but Alliance backed Haass
:02:34. > :02:41.when it came to dealing with the area of the past I believe on the
:02:42. > :02:49.past we have seen a huge sea change. Two days the SDLP confirmed they
:02:50. > :02:53.were in the yes camp. With he came to the Executive tonight with a
:02:54. > :02:56.strong recommendation that there be a general endorsement of the
:02:57. > :03:02.proposals. During the talks, the Ulster Unionists leader, Mike
:03:03. > :03:07.Nesbitt sound optimistic about the prospects of a Dell Are you opted
:03:08. > :03:11.mystic? I don't see why not. But when they met at temple Patrick
:03:12. > :03:14.earlier this week, the Ulster Unionists made it clear they were in
:03:15. > :03:21.the no camp. They had problems about the language used regarding the
:03:22. > :03:26.Troubles and the proposed code of conduct on parades. Haass they
:03:27. > :03:29.decided was not viable and unacceptable. It is up to the first
:03:30. > :03:33.anyonester and Deputy First Minister. Of this' commissioned it.
:03:34. > :03:36.They created the mess. They now have the report and it is up to them to
:03:37. > :03:40.tell us and the people of Northern Ireland what theyp intend to do with
:03:41. > :03:43.it. That left the biggest party, the DUP. The day after the Ulster
:03:44. > :03:47.Unionists gave Haass the thumbs down, the DUP supported a
:03:48. > :03:51.recommendation from its leader that a working group should be set up to
:03:52. > :03:54.resolve disagreements. There are many propositions within the
:03:55. > :03:58.document that we can support. There are others that we can't and we want
:03:59. > :04:01.to work on the ones that we can't agree, to see if there is a way
:04:02. > :04:04.forward that is also acceptable to other political parties. Peter
:04:05. > :04:09.Robinson said it wasn't a yes and wasn't a no. Instead, it was a "not
:04:10. > :04:14.yet." However in the Commons yesterday, some of the DUP MPs,
:04:15. > :04:19.expressed serious reservations about the balance struck in the final
:04:20. > :04:23.Haass document. They sounded as if they were leaning more towards the
:04:24. > :04:28.no than the yes camp. Will the Secretary of State not agree with me
:04:29. > :04:34.that no deal was better than a deal which would have he ises a bated the
:04:35. > :04:37.divisions in Northern Ireland? -- exacerbated? I do believe that my
:04:38. > :04:44.party was right to say no to the final text. From across the
:04:45. > :04:53.Atlantic, the talks' chair has been carefully monitoring these mixed
:04:54. > :04:55.responses. Now he has his say. Well, I've been speaking to the talks
:04:56. > :04:59.chairman in his first in-depth interview since his final draft was
:05:00. > :05:03.published on New Year's Eve. I asked him first if the failure to reach
:05:04. > :05:07.agreement was because the five local parties were simply incapable of
:05:08. > :05:11.compromise? I'm uncomfortable with the word "failure." Obviously it
:05:12. > :05:15.hasn't succeeded but I think it is premature to do an up a or
:05:16. > :05:20.postmortem. There is still a chance it can move ahead. -- an awe top
:05:21. > :05:23.city or postmortem. I think the parties will have to depend their
:05:24. > :05:28.positions why three, in particular, were not prepared to endorse this
:05:29. > :05:33.agreement, that, quite honestly I, and we feel gave them more than
:05:34. > :05:36.enough to go out and defend it, not just to the general public but to
:05:37. > :05:41.their own particular constituents. Which three parties? Well the two
:05:42. > :05:45.unionists parties and the Alliance were not prepared to sign on to the
:05:46. > :05:48.agreement. I make it clear, this is, if you will, collectively their
:05:49. > :05:52.agreement. This had been an agreement all five parties worked on
:05:53. > :05:56.for six months and we had gone to enormous lengths to try to take into
:05:57. > :06:00.account their particular views, their concerns, their priorities.
:06:01. > :06:04.And we thought we had done just that. So, you are saying that the
:06:05. > :06:08.DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance party were ect ifively
:06:09. > :06:13.not peered to make the necessary compromises to reach agreement? In
:06:14. > :06:18.so many words, yes, Sir. You said in your statement,
:06:19. > :06:22.yesterday, that there were certain parties who were being "unrealistic
:06:23. > :06:28.in the extreme", presumably that's those three parties? Well, again, in
:06:29. > :06:32.any negotiation in Northern Ireland, as unique as it is, it is not unique
:06:33. > :06:36.in this sense, in any negotiation, the parties have to look at a
:06:37. > :06:41.document in its entirety. There is always going to be parts of an
:06:42. > :06:44.agreement that are going to give you pause. There are always going to be
:06:45. > :06:47.things that you wish for in the agreement that are not. That's not
:06:48. > :06:52.unique. What you have to do, as someone in political life, is look
:06:53. > :06:56.at something in its whole and say - on Balham I better off with this,
:06:57. > :07:00.than without it? I believe the answer outing to be a clear yes for
:07:01. > :07:03.all five parties. You will not be surprised to hear me suggest that
:07:04. > :07:08.the three parties you have just named there as failing to compromise
:07:09. > :07:13.are unlikely to take issue with that interpretation. Let's start with the
:07:14. > :07:15.Alliance party. That matters position is that it has been
:07:16. > :07:20.uncomfortable with certain aspects of the deal that has been on the
:07:21. > :07:25.table because it didn't go far enough. Again, any agreement goes
:07:26. > :07:28.too far in some places for some, and then it doesn't go far enough. You
:07:29. > :07:34.have to ask yourself a simple question: Would we be better off n
:07:35. > :07:38.this sense, "we", the people of Northern Ireland, the society, with
:07:39. > :07:44.agreement or without. Obviously an agreement is imperfect in and of
:07:45. > :07:47.itself and it is subjectively imperfect from the vantage part of
:07:48. > :07:50.any party. That's not the point. It is always the case of negotiation
:07:51. > :07:55.and in political life but at some point you've got to step up and make
:07:56. > :08:01.a decision. A lot of life is close calls. 51/49 but you industrial to
:08:02. > :08:07.make a decision. I don't think this was a close call. I don't think it
:08:08. > :08:11.was a a 51/49 call. I think it was something that was much more clearly
:08:12. > :08:14.A-positive and again, you can always find reasons not to go ahead with
:08:15. > :08:20.something but not going ahead with an agreement is at least as
:08:21. > :08:24.consequential as actually to decide to go forward with it. The Ulster
:08:25. > :08:28.Unionists and the Democratic Unionists may well say they didn't
:08:29. > :08:31.sign up because the deal as they saw t was skewed against them. One
:08:32. > :08:36.unionist politician said yesterday in Westminster, no deal is better
:08:37. > :08:39.than aed about deal. Well, in principle anyone is right to say
:08:40. > :08:43.that no deal is better than a bad deal. But this was a good deal.
:08:44. > :08:47.There was something in it it for all the people of Northern Ireland,
:08:48. > :08:52.including unionists. For example, taking the parading issue. This
:08:53. > :08:54.would have established a devolved parading authority which was
:08:55. > :08:59.something very much that unionists wanted. 95% of the parades would
:09:00. > :09:04.have been automatically OKKed as simply an admin strictive matter.
:09:05. > :09:08.There was strong statements about why parading is part of the
:09:09. > :09:12.tradition of Northern Ireland. In the areas of the past, I would think
:09:13. > :09:17.there would be lots of things that would meet with the approval of
:09:18. > :09:21.unionists, including when it came to lacking at the patterns of violence
:09:22. > :09:24.over the years that we come out of this information process, that was
:09:25. > :09:30.to have been established, and this would give them a chance to say -
:09:31. > :09:35.look, we have been saying for years that paramilitaries did certain
:09:36. > :09:38.things, this, this buttresses those arguments. They should like the fact
:09:39. > :09:42.that there was no amnesty in this agreement. They should like the fact
:09:43. > :09:47.that prosecution was an avenue of choice that would be kept open for
:09:48. > :09:51.victims. I could go on and on. I think there is a lot in this for
:09:52. > :09:56.unionists. I think there is a lot in this for national is, for
:09:57. > :10:01.republicans and supporters of the Alliance. -- nationalists. There are
:10:02. > :10:05.a lot of things they will find they don't like but it is not very hard
:10:06. > :10:08.to look at an agreement and selectively say, we don't like that
:10:09. > :10:11.or that. That to me is not very interesting. It is not a very
:10:12. > :10:16.demanding challenge. Again, what you have to do is look at something in
:10:17. > :10:21.its entirety and I think again, regardless of your political
:10:22. > :10:24.affiliation in Northern Ireland, I believe there is a strong case that
:10:25. > :10:33.that can be made that you in believe there is a strong case that
:10:34. > :10:34.be better off with this greement. Which by the way was not my
:10:35. > :10:38.agreement or Meghan O'Sullivan's agreement. This was an agreement we
:10:39. > :10:42.fashioned over six months, listening to the five parties and trying to
:10:43. > :10:47.accommodate their priorities. That's yu came back presumably after
:10:48. > :10:50.Christmas for that final push into the New Year, because you believed,
:10:51. > :10:54.did you, that the parties were prepared to make the necessary
:10:55. > :10:58.compromise to actually find an agreement that everybody could sign
:10:59. > :11:03.up to? You were led to believe that, by what you heard, before Christmas
:11:04. > :11:08.s that right? Absolutely. As delightful as Belfast can be that
:11:09. > :11:11.time of year, that's not why we returned. We returned because we
:11:12. > :11:15.believed there was a very good chance of getting an agreement and
:11:16. > :11:18.the reason we thought there was because of what we were seeing and
:11:19. > :11:21.hearing around the table. And when we heard individual parties say -
:11:22. > :11:25.we've go the a real problem with this position or that, we went to
:11:26. > :11:31.great lengths to accommodate that. Now, there is obviously limits. And
:11:32. > :11:34.at some point you run the risk of losing one or more parties if you
:11:35. > :11:38.try to meet the demands of another. We did our best to come up with
:11:39. > :11:42.compromises that we thought were well within the bounds of what
:11:43. > :11:46.everybody could live with. What was the mrood music like during some of
:11:47. > :11:50.those final round table sessions? Were party representatives engaging
:11:51. > :11:58.with each other across the table and across the divide in a constructive
:11:59. > :12:02.way? More often than not, yes. I actually thought the quality of
:12:03. > :12:07.negotiations was quite good. People put in enormous hours. Made great
:12:08. > :12:11.efforts. I thought, in many cases, to use an American expression, we
:12:12. > :12:14.moved the ball considerably. In particular, when it came to dealing
:12:15. > :12:18.with the legacy of the past. We made considerable progress on parading
:12:19. > :12:27.and other assemblies as well. Obviously much less so in the realm
:12:28. > :12:31.of flags and flags and emblems, which turned out to be one of the
:12:32. > :12:34.more difficult issues to tackle but I thought all in all the quality of
:12:35. > :12:40.the conversations was good. Again, we would not have returned if we
:12:41. > :12:44.thought it was a fool's erand. We thought there was a good chance of
:12:45. > :12:47.succeeding. That wasn't in our imagination. That was based upon
:12:48. > :12:51.what we were seeing and hearing across the table. At what point, Dr
:12:52. > :12:56.Haass, did you begin to he will radioise that a deal would not be
:12:57. > :13:02.done? Well that -- that a deal would not be done? That didn't become
:13:03. > :13:07.clear to December 30th or 31st. Up until the end we had good reason to
:13:08. > :13:10.believe that while parties had concerns, we continued to think
:13:11. > :13:16.there there was a considerable chance they would see the logic of
:13:17. > :13:20.supporting or endorsing the whole, despite whatever reservations or
:13:21. > :13:25.concerns they might have. So, if the mood music was good and if you
:13:26. > :13:28.thought that the deal, as it was taking shape, offered something for
:13:29. > :13:33.everyone, what was the key sticking point? What unravelled the whole
:13:34. > :13:37.process, do you think? I don't think there is any single thing. Again,
:13:38. > :13:40.I'm hoping the process still has a chance of coming together but for
:13:41. > :13:44.the three parties that were not prepared to endorse it, they each
:13:45. > :13:48.had obvious concerns. Some were articulated more than others. I
:13:49. > :13:54.would prefer for them to speak and justify or explain their choices
:13:55. > :13:58.about what it was that led them to think that they narrowly or that
:13:59. > :14:01.society as a whole would be better off without this agreement. That's
:14:02. > :14:06.essentially their responsibility and they ought to - if that's the
:14:07. > :14:10.position they in fact take - then they ought to be willing to stand up
:14:11. > :14:15.and justify that choice. That's what accountability is all about in a
:14:16. > :14:18.democracy. Well, to a greater or lesser extent they've said something
:14:19. > :14:21.about what the problems were for each of them. They have been quite
:14:22. > :14:26.clear about that in some of the interviews that they've given. But
:14:27. > :14:29.you talk about about the past being one of the areas that perhaps
:14:30. > :14:32.surprisingly you made good progress on. Everybody seemed to think that
:14:33. > :14:38.the past was effectively a done deal. At bit more work to be done on
:14:39. > :14:42.parades and flags you had kicked the can down a road a bit but the past
:14:43. > :14:46.unravelled dramatically in those final couple of days as well, didn't
:14:47. > :14:52.it? I don't think so. I actually thought by the end you had quite a
:14:53. > :14:55.degree of consensus on the basic Ince institutions that would be
:14:56. > :14:59.established to deal with the legacy of the past. Yes you had differences
:15:00. > :15:03.over the patterns and themes about how you would generalise over
:15:04. > :15:07.patterns of conflict but gernings at the end there were specifics that
:15:08. > :15:13.were introduced that I thought captured fairly well, the balance
:15:14. > :15:19.and totality of the historical record. So, again, quite honestly, I
:15:20. > :15:25.don't understand why anyone would think that not moving ahead with
:15:26. > :15:30.what had been a,accomplished would be preferable. I also think, by I a
:15:31. > :15:33.which, it is unfair to the victims and survivors who deserve better. I
:15:34. > :15:37.also think it is very bad for Northern Ireland. If there is going
:15:38. > :15:40.to be success at dealing with the present and future challenges, I
:15:41. > :15:44.came to the conclusion - and by the way it is not one I started out with
:15:45. > :15:47.- I came to the conclusion that it is first going to be necessary to
:15:48. > :15:54.contend successfully with the legacy of the past. So, I believe that the
:15:55. > :15:57.parties do not move ahead at, if you l tremendous cost to the society, as
:15:58. > :16:01.well as to those individuals who have already paid an enormous price
:16:02. > :16:06.sfwl. Would more time have made a difference do you think? ? It is
:16:07. > :16:10.very hard for me to argue that after six months and more hours than I can
:16:11. > :16:13.count either individually with the parties or collectively that the
:16:14. > :16:16.missing ingredient was more time. There was plenty of time and there
:16:17. > :16:20.still is time, if people are prepared to compromise. The idea
:16:21. > :16:24.that this agreement can be negotiated and renegotiated and
:16:25. > :16:31.renegotiated and somehow positions are going to change dramatically and
:16:32. > :16:35.the calculus of the parties is going to change dramatically is not
:16:36. > :16:39.realistic. There has been enough time. With respect, Dr Haass isn't
:16:40. > :16:44.there a bit of a Coentra digs in what you were saying, if wasn't -- a
:16:45. > :16:50.contradiction in what you are saying, if time wasn't the issue and
:16:51. > :16:53.you had reached a brick wall on New Year's Eve, where you were not going
:16:54. > :16:57.to reach resolution, what is the point of setting up an all-party
:16:58. > :17:02.group, because that's simply buying more time? Well, if that's all it
:17:03. > :17:05.is, it'll prove to be fairly empty. If, however, there has been a chance
:17:06. > :17:10.for reflection and reconsideration, then perhaps the parties can very
:17:11. > :17:13.quickly move to a consensus. I would hope that is the case. As we said in
:17:14. > :17:17.our statement - while we believe there is a comprehensive case for
:17:18. > :17:22.advancing comprehensively -- a powerful case for advancing
:17:23. > :17:25.comprehensively and we belief there are political trade offs in the
:17:26. > :17:29.agreement. It is obviously up to them, if they want to move out in
:17:30. > :17:35.only certain directions rather than in all three. I'm not arguing your
:17:36. > :17:40.basic point. I'm not going to say that six more months would somehow
:17:41. > :17:43.deliver a fundamentally different proposition than the six months we
:17:44. > :17:46.have. That's in the the case whatsoever. The realities are not
:17:47. > :17:49.going to change. Is it time with the British and Irish governments to
:17:50. > :17:53.reengage with the process to try to move it on to the next stage? Is
:17:54. > :17:55.that essential? I believe they have a continuing role, both governments.
:17:56. > :18:00.They are obviously directly affected by what goes on in Northern Ireland.
:18:01. > :18:06.There are specific issues wherem some cases they have a statutory
:18:07. > :18:11.role. I would hope they would create a liaison mechanism would this new
:18:12. > :18:13.working group that is to be established to work with the
:18:14. > :18:17.parties. I really think the critical factor here will be the willingness
:18:18. > :18:22.and ability of the five parties to twoshgt and for each of the parties
:18:23. > :18:26.-- to work together. And each of the parties individually to step up to
:18:27. > :18:29.the need it make some big decisions and essentially to compromise, not
:18:30. > :18:33.on core principles but on preferences. No-one was asked to
:18:34. > :18:38.compromise a core principle here. Everybody was asked to compromise
:18:39. > :18:42.some preferences and that is something that I would argue is
:18:43. > :18:46.central to the reality and art of politics. Is part of the difficulty,
:18:47. > :18:50.Dr Haass that you and Meghan O'Sullivan had no carrot or stick at
:18:51. > :18:53.your dispose A you couldn't table any incentives or sanctions to get
:18:54. > :18:58.the party over the life. That was very different to the way things
:18:59. > :19:03.were in the past, for example, at the time in 19898 of the Good Friday
:19:04. > :19:06.agreement. -- 1999. Yes, it was one of the oddities of this negotiation
:19:07. > :19:09.that we were not representing a government. The two of us were there
:19:10. > :19:14.at the behest of the five parties. But that suggested a willingness on
:19:15. > :19:17.the part of both of First Minister and Deputy First Minister as well as
:19:18. > :19:22.the five parties to have us there, to invite us in and not want this
:19:23. > :19:27.process to succeed, I don't quite see point of it. I actually think,
:19:28. > :19:32.more generally, there are limits to what outsiders can do. There are
:19:33. > :19:36.limits to what mediators or facilitate os can do. It is the
:19:37. > :19:39.parties and leaders who are going to have to live with the consequences
:19:40. > :19:43.of the agreement. But, true, we were not representing a government. We
:19:44. > :19:48.could not offer this amount of economic incentive or this amount of
:19:49. > :19:53.political threat or sanction but I do think there is tre mennous
:19:54. > :19:58.incentive politic Klein economically inherent in an agreement of this
:19:59. > :20:02.sort: If this goes ahead, you would have a calmer Northern Ireland.
:20:03. > :20:05.Police costs would be dramatically down, investment in tourism would be
:20:06. > :20:09.up. A lot of people are be standing up and talking about the resource
:20:10. > :20:12.demands of this agreement. I think there are tremendous benefits there
:20:13. > :20:20.as well if Northern Ireland is judged to be a more viable, more
:20:21. > :20:24.successful society. Peter Robinson says any working group now
:20:25. > :20:27.established should try to resolve outstanding disagreements but Martin
:20:28. > :20:32.McGuinness says it should simply implement the deal as it stands.
:20:33. > :20:35.Which approach do you back? Well, it is really up to the five parties to
:20:36. > :20:38.agree on that. As we said, we think there is a strong case for a
:20:39. > :20:45.comprehensive agreement that embraces all three areas that were
:20:46. > :20:50.part of the negotiation. Obviously, we believe that December 31 draft is
:20:51. > :20:54.already to go ahead as-is, and some of the details can be refined when
:20:55. > :20:57.it comes to, say, writing the legislation or in the
:20:58. > :21:01.implementation. But if there is a consensus to spend a small amount of
:21:02. > :21:05.time ironing out some remaining issues, fine. I think what you want
:21:06. > :21:11.to avoid is where basic issues are opened up and renegotiation becomes
:21:12. > :21:16.an excuse not to go ahead that. Will become apparent soon enough, if the
:21:17. > :21:20.effort to renegotiate really is to close a few small areas of
:21:21. > :21:24.disagreement or not. But I have to tell you, if it is only a few small
:21:25. > :21:28.areas of disagreement, it is not clear what we have already agreed.
:21:29. > :21:32.What we have already not agreed. That said, this is up - it is not up
:21:33. > :21:36.to me, it is up to the five parties to work out. I hope they resolve it
:21:37. > :21:40.and resolve it quickly. Is there any possibility, finally, if it is just
:21:41. > :21:44.a few small areas of outstanding disagreement, that you and Meghan
:21:45. > :21:49.O'Sullivan might come back for one, further, final push, if that sorted
:21:50. > :21:53.it out once and for all? I really don't see the need for that. The
:21:54. > :21:57.whole idea was we would do this until December 31st. We gave it a
:21:58. > :22:02.tremendous amount of time and effort. Professor O'Sullivan has
:22:03. > :22:05.responsibilities teaching at Harvard. I have responsibilities
:22:06. > :22:09.here at the organisation I'm the President of. I really believe the
:22:10. > :22:13.time has come for the five parties to take ownership of this agreement.
:22:14. > :22:16.And to resolve whatever remaining differences might exist and to begin
:22:17. > :22:20.the implementation. Look, even if there had been complete agreement on
:22:21. > :22:24.December 31st, they still would have then had to have move, among other
:22:25. > :22:27.things, legislation and implementation. They still would
:22:28. > :22:31.have needed to work things out and you wouldn't have Meghan O'Sullivan
:22:32. > :22:33.or me or any outsider in the middle of Stormont. They would have to be
:22:34. > :22:37.on the floor of the Assembly and make this work. So I think the idea
:22:38. > :22:41.that at this point you need outsiders, is probably wrong. What
:22:42. > :22:45.you need are insiders, willing to make decisions, willing to lead, and
:22:46. > :22:48.then willing to go out in public to make the case for why it is they
:22:49. > :22:55.think this is in the best interests of all the people of Northern
:22:56. > :23:01.Ireland. Richard Haass speaking to me from New York before we came on
:23:02. > :23:05.air. Let's hear the thoutss of our Political Editor, Mark Devenport who
:23:06. > :23:09.is joined by commentators Fionnuala O'Connor and Alex Cain. Thank you
:23:10. > :23:12.very much. Was this Richard Haass joining in the blame game? To some
:23:13. > :23:17.extent in a sense he spelled out those who he feels didn't show the
:23:18. > :23:20.necessary spirit of compromise in terms of naming the two unionist
:23:21. > :23:26.parties and naming Alliance in his final news conference just after the
:23:27. > :23:30.New Year's Eve talks broke up he was courteous and paid tribute to the
:23:31. > :23:33.hard work of all sides but he has been watching from across the
:23:34. > :23:37.Atlantic and he has turned the tables on those who said no or maybe
:23:38. > :23:41.to his deal. I think the overall tone of that was really quite
:23:42. > :23:46.pugnacious. He decided diplomacy has only got him so far and decided to
:23:47. > :23:48.be a little less diplomatic. Whether it'll make any difference
:23:49. > :23:55.ultimately, because whilst he said it was too early to do an autopsy on
:23:56. > :23:59.his process to borrow a line from Naomi Long during the talks, this
:24:00. > :24:07.patient is most definitely on life support. People on Twitter
:24:08. > :24:11.describing him as a former diplomat. It sounded very much. That laugh at
:24:12. > :24:14.the end was a pretty conclusive one - are you mad, he was effectively
:24:15. > :24:18.saying, do you think I'm come back to this again? I thought it was a
:24:19. > :24:24.lot sharper than Mark has suggested and there was no attempt at the end
:24:25. > :24:29.to suggest anything like equivalence between the positions. You asked him
:24:30. > :24:34.to choose between Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson's verdicts and
:24:35. > :24:38.said something like he didn't want to do that but then he did
:24:39. > :24:45.effectively say, obviously we believe that December 31st was, the
:24:46. > :24:50.draft was ready to go ahead as is and later on said, "And begin
:24:51. > :24:53.implementation." So he was effectively saying, explicitly
:24:54. > :25:00.saying, the issue should not be opened up and renegotiated. That is
:25:01. > :25:04.as conclusive judgment as you can make, whilst still being polite.
:25:05. > :25:08.Now, he was polite but he did - he did make it very clear where he
:25:09. > :25:13.thought the fault lay. And he didn't put a tooth in it, either, when he
:25:14. > :25:19.said he thought it was unfair to the victims and to society in general.
:25:20. > :25:23.You could say that's not diplomatic but maybe there comes a point when
:25:24. > :25:27.diplomats have to say, as he did in the end - the role for outsiders has
:25:28. > :25:33.ended. The time is for people here to step up to the politic. He didn't
:25:34. > :25:37.say "step up to the plate", to "step up." Effectedively he was saying
:25:38. > :25:41.unionists have to face the fact that there is a compromise to be made and
:25:42. > :25:45.they have to make T it is not as though nationalists and republicans
:25:46. > :25:49.haven't also made compromises in this, most nationalists and
:25:50. > :25:53.republicans would think on parading and flags, the compromise has been
:25:54. > :25:56.made by them for quite a long time. Alex, it is interesting, he was
:25:57. > :26:00.clear in the earlier part of the interview that in his view, this is
:26:01. > :26:04.a good deal for everyone, including unionists. What do you think
:26:05. > :26:08.unionist Is reaction will be on his take to what went wrong? I agree
:26:09. > :26:12.with the other two here. That was a very fed-up, annoyed man, a man who
:26:13. > :26:15.had been dragged back across the Atlantic after Christmas on the
:26:16. > :26:18.promise, which must have come from the five parties, he must have had
:26:19. > :26:24.very good reason for coming back here. He is thoroughly fed-up with
:26:25. > :26:29.what has happened. I think doesn't understand N terms of union Iism I'm
:26:30. > :26:33.not sure what happened. Peter Robinson he is not happy with some
:26:34. > :26:37.aspects of the language, the Ulster Unionists say they are not happy
:26:38. > :26:42.with any parties at all but haven't set out specific problems. And said
:26:43. > :26:46.- this is not what we cannot live with. If he was able to say walking
:26:47. > :26:51.through the resolving doors, a deal is likely, why suddenly, 24 hours
:26:52. > :26:55.later, none is accepted. There must have been something in the deal that
:26:56. > :27:00.the DUP and UUP thought was worth supporting. Why did that disappear?
:27:01. > :27:05.Did they allow themselves to be spooked? What do you think that
:27:06. > :27:12.reason was? We had positive positions from Mike Nesbitt and all
:27:13. > :27:14.of a sudden he is against T We have contradictory positions and
:27:15. > :27:17.attitudes. We had from the beginning Richard Haass saying - send people
:27:18. > :27:20.to these negotiations who will represent the parties and who can
:27:21. > :27:25.come back to the parties, who can represent their parties with some
:27:26. > :27:29.confidence. We had the DUP send, as one of their delegations, someone
:27:30. > :27:34.who wasn't even part of the party, a member of the party, the orange man
:27:35. > :27:41.be, Mervyn Gibson. We had the Ulster Unionists sending Geoff Dudgeon an
:27:42. > :27:44.interesting party who many Ulster Unionists weren't aware was senior
:27:45. > :27:48.in the party or had been in it for a long time, although he has been in
:27:49. > :27:52.for quite sometime but what Haass said initially and clearly has
:27:53. > :27:55.believed should have been happening all along, was that the people who
:27:56. > :27:59.came to these negotiations would have to go back, would be given
:28:00. > :28:03.credit and that the parties would then sell what they brought back.
:28:04. > :28:07.And, obviously, there was some suggestion that they were going to
:28:08. > :28:12.do that. What we have seen this week -- one of the most striking things
:28:13. > :28:17.we have seen is the emergence of Jamie Bryson and Willy Fraser saying
:28:18. > :28:21.- we were there and conning sulted. Whether they were there and people
:28:22. > :28:27.saw them there, whether their public comments on drafts helped to spook
:28:28. > :28:30.people who were already not ready to sell to the parties, is something to
:28:31. > :28:35.be wondered at. Mark, where do you think this leaves
:28:36. > :28:38.the process from here on in? He has clearly ruled himself out of any
:28:39. > :28:42.future involvement. But do his comments and his glimpse of what was
:28:43. > :28:45.going on behind the scenes make it much less likely that the five
:28:46. > :28:50.parties will in fact be able to sit down together, with some kind of
:28:51. > :28:54.working group and reach a meaningful agreement? Well, I think it is
:28:55. > :28:57.really hard to understand yob this working group will make any progress
:28:58. > :29:01.without Richard Haass when effectively the same people couldn't
:29:02. > :29:06.make the progress with him and with Meghan O'Sullivan there. I don't
:29:07. > :29:09.really see quite why they will be able to make that gross, especially
:29:10. > :29:13.when they are looking at elections in May which is inevitably going to
:29:14. > :29:19.add pressure there. He has been pretty clear that he thinks they all
:29:20. > :29:24.shouldville followed Sinn Fein and the SDLP's example in accepting his
:29:25. > :29:28.deal -- that they all should have. Peter Robinson is being could I in
:29:29. > :29:32.saying why he can't followed that line. -- being coy. It is clear from
:29:33. > :29:37.the Ulster Unionists executive and what was said in the Commons today,
:29:38. > :29:41.that it is a mixture of concern about the status of a strict code of
:29:42. > :29:44.conduct on parades which the marching orders doented like and
:29:45. > :29:48.also that balance in relation to the past which a lot of DUP MPs went on
:29:49. > :29:54.about in the Commons yesterday. We know those are their areas but they
:29:55. > :29:58.are big areas, still, not the little small technical areas that he says
:29:59. > :30:03.could be tidied up before going ahead with this agreement. That's
:30:04. > :30:07.perhaps to say, Mark, you have put your fingers on T they are talking
:30:08. > :30:12.about sections and details and particular points. What Haass said,
:30:13. > :30:16.over and over, was they were trying to reach a consensus on things that
:30:17. > :30:19.everybody would - something for everybody
:30:20. > :30:23.# It but also things that people would disagree on. That's the only
:30:24. > :30:35.way you get an agreement. The other people we have not mentioned tonight
:30:36. > :30:40.are a Alliance. They've ended up in an ununfortunate position being
:30:41. > :30:43.bracketed with the Ulster Unionists. They have bracketed them together. I
:30:44. > :30:47.don't know what went on. For the middle of the roaders party of
:30:48. > :30:50.compromise and moderation, especially who had been at the
:30:51. > :30:58.receiving end of so much trouble and vilification on flags...
:30:59. > :31:01.Interesting, Naomi Long tweeted there was real progress in the past,
:31:02. > :31:05.some progress on parades and none on flags. In one stage on the interview
:31:06. > :31:10.that's how Richard Haass summed up the success or injury wise of the
:31:11. > :31:13.process. It is. I think that's the irony as Fionnuala says, the party
:31:14. > :31:17.that wants everybody to come together should be the one that came
:31:18. > :31:22.out first. According to Haass and everyone else at the final meeting,
:31:23. > :31:26.aAlliance was the one most reluctant to sign this. But the other
:31:27. > :31:29.interesting thing about the unionist thing and Bryson and Fraser have
:31:30. > :31:33.been mentioned I cannot for the life of me understand why the DUP and UUP
:31:34. > :31:37.are spooked by these people. They have no electoral mandate and no
:31:38. > :31:41.real clout anywhere whatsoever. We don't know that's the case, it is
:31:42. > :31:46.speculation. We do know it is the case... No clout or... They have no
:31:47. > :31:53.mandate. Both have tried to be elected and haven't been. What I am
:31:54. > :31:56.saying is if unionism is at this stage of the Assembly and is afraid
:31:57. > :32:01.of people like that, it says there isn't going to be a deal any time.
:32:02. > :32:05.Not just in the next few weeks but name. Finally and quickly, what
:32:06. > :32:10.happens now? Do the two governments have to be more involved to nudge
:32:11. > :32:13.this forward, in a sense Well Thersea Villiers saying if the
:32:14. > :32:17.parties can get an agreement she will help to implement it but she
:32:18. > :32:22.didn't take the suggestions that she should take a lead in this. There is
:32:23. > :32:27.the problem you raised Richard Haass has no car the yo or stick, only
:32:28. > :32:30.governments have those incentives to use on people.
:32:31. > :32:34.-- no carrot or stick. That's it from the View this will
:32:35. > :32:42.week. I will be back with political reaction to Richard Haass' interview
:32:43. > :32:47.on an extended Sunday politics at 11.35am here on BBC One on Sunday.
:32:48. > :32:57.For now, thank you for watching. Goodbye.