09/01/2014 The View

Hello and welcome to a special edition of The View.

Clr Tonight, Richard Haas on the frustration of not succeeding in

getting the five main parties to sign up to his New Year's Eve deal.

In his first interview since his return to New York, the former

diplomat accuses some Executive parties of being "unrealistic in the

extreme". The critical factor here will be the

willingness and ability of the five parties to work together and for

each of the parties, individually, to essentially step up to the need

to make some big decisions and essentially to compromise. Not on

core principles but on preferences. So, is there a willingness to reach

consensus or are we facing an indefinite stalemate? We'll hear the

views of our Political Editor, Mark Devenport, and commentators

Fionnuala O'Connor and Alex Kane. And you can, of course, follow the

programme on Twitter. That's @BBCtheview.

Six months of work, countless meetings, hundreds of submissions

and days of feverish negotiation in the countdown to a December 31st

deadline, but ultimately the talks chaired by Richard Haass ended in

disappointment. Tonight, on this special edition of The View, I'll be

talking to Dr Haass for the first time since he flew out of Northern

Ireland. We'll hear that interview in just a moment but first here's

our Political Editor, Mark Devenport. Be a embarrassing

failure, or a difficult piece of work still in progress? As dawn

approached t became clear that the New Year's Eve talks wouldn't be

another Good Friday or St Andrew's agreement. Some parties harboured

major reservations about the Haass proposals but Sinn Fein was prepared

to accept it, warts and all. Our negotiating team is recommending to

the Sinn Fein Council that we believe that there is a basis for a

deal in the proposals put forward. They are not perfect. The failure to

achieve more on flags, angered Alliance which saw a were posed

18-month commission as a delaying tactic but Alliance backed Haass

when it came to dealing with the area of the past I believe on the

past we have seen a huge sea change. Two days the SDLP confirmed they

were in the yes camp. With he came to the Executive tonight with a

strong recommendation that there be a general endorsement of the

proposals. During the talks, the Ulster Unionists leader, Mike

Nesbitt sound optimistic about the prospects of a Dell Are you opted

mystic? I don't see why not. But when they met at temple Patrick

earlier this week, the Ulster Unionists made it clear they were in

the no camp. They had problems about the language used regarding the

Troubles and the proposed code of conduct on parades. Haass they

decided was not viable and unacceptable. It is up to the first

anyonester and Deputy First Minister. Of this' commissioned it.

They created the mess. They now have the report and it is up to them to

tell us and the people of Northern Ireland what theyp intend to do with

it. That left the biggest party, the DUP. The day after the Ulster

Unionists gave Haass the thumbs down, the DUP supported a

recommendation from its leader that a working group should be set up to

resolve disagreements. There are many propositions within the

document that we can support. There are others that we can't and we want

to work on the ones that we can't agree, to see if there is a way

forward that is also acceptable to other political parties. Peter

Robinson said it wasn't a yes and wasn't a no. Instead, it was a "not

yet." However in the Commons yesterday, some of the DUP MPs,

expressed serious reservations about the balance struck in the final

Haass document. They sounded as if they were leaning more towards the

no than the yes camp. Will the Secretary of State not agree with me

that no deal was better than a deal which would have he ises a bated the

divisions in Northern Ireland? -- exacerbated? I do believe that my

party was right to say no to the final text. From across the

Atlantic, the talks' chair has been carefully monitoring these mixed

responses. Now he has his say. Well, I've been speaking to the talks

chairman in his first in-depth interview since his final draft was

published on New Year's Eve. I asked him first if the failure to reach

agreement was because the five local parties were simply incapable of

compromise? I'm uncomfortable with the word "failure." Obviously it

hasn't succeeded but I think it is premature to do an up a or

postmortem. There is still a chance it can move ahead. -- an awe top

city or postmortem. I think the parties will have to depend their

positions why three, in particular, were not prepared to endorse this

agreement, that, quite honestly I, and we feel gave them more than

enough to go out and defend it, not just to the general public but to

their own particular constituents. Which three parties? Well the two

unionists parties and the Alliance were not prepared to sign on to the

agreement. I make it clear, this is, if you will, collectively their

agreement. This had been an agreement all five parties worked on

for six months and we had gone to enormous lengths to try to take into

account their particular views, their concerns, their priorities.

And we thought we had done just that. So, you are saying that the

DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance party were ect ifively

not peered to make the necessary compromises to reach agreement? In

so many words, yes, Sir. You said in your statement,

yesterday, that there were certain parties who were being "unrealistic

in the extreme", presumably that's those three parties? Well, again, in

any negotiation in Northern Ireland, as unique as it is, it is not unique

in this sense, in any negotiation, the parties have to look at a

document in its entirety. There is always going to be parts of an

agreement that are going to give you pause. There are always going to be

things that you wish for in the agreement that are not. That's not

unique. What you have to do, as someone in political life, is look

at something in its whole and say - on Balham I better off with this,

than without it? I believe the answer outing to be a clear yes for

all five parties. You will not be surprised to hear me suggest that

the three parties you have just named there as failing to compromise

are unlikely to take issue with that interpretation. Let's start with the

Alliance party. That matters position is that it has been

uncomfortable with certain aspects of the deal that has been on the

table because it didn't go far enough. Again, any agreement goes

too far in some places for some, and then it doesn't go far enough. You

have to ask yourself a simple question: Would we be better off n

this sense, "we", the people of Northern Ireland, the society, with

agreement or without. Obviously an agreement is imperfect in and of

itself and it is subjectively imperfect from the vantage part of

any party. That's not the point. It is always the case of negotiation

and in political life but at some point you've got to step up and make

a decision. A lot of life is close calls. 51/49 but you industrial to

make a decision. I don't think this was a close call. I don't think it

was a a 51/49 call. I think it was something that was much more clearly

A-positive and again, you can always find reasons not to go ahead with

something but not going ahead with an agreement is at least as

consequential as actually to decide to go forward with it. The Ulster

Unionists and the Democratic Unionists may well say they didn't

sign up because the deal as they saw t was skewed against them. One

unionist politician said yesterday in Westminster, no deal is better

than aed about deal. Well, in principle anyone is right to say

that no deal is better than a bad deal. But this was a good deal.

There was something in it it for all the people of Northern Ireland,

including unionists. For example, taking the parading issue. This

would have established a devolved parading authority which was

something very much that unionists wanted. 95% of the parades would

have been automatically OKKed as simply an admin strictive matter.

There was strong statements about why parading is part of the

tradition of Northern Ireland. In the areas of the past, I would think

there would be lots of things that would meet with the approval of

unionists, including when it came to lacking at the patterns of violence

over the years that we come out of this information process, that was

to have been established, and this would give them a chance to say -

look, we have been saying for years that paramilitaries did certain

things, this, this buttresses those arguments. They should like the fact

that there was no amnesty in this agreement. They should like the fact

that prosecution was an avenue of choice that would be kept open for

victims. I could go on and on. I think there is a lot in this for

unionists. I think there is a lot in this for national is, for

republicans and supporters of the Alliance. -- nationalists. There are

a lot of things they will find they don't like but it is not very hard

to look at an agreement and selectively say, we don't like that

or that. That to me is not very interesting. It is not a very

demanding challenge. Again, what you have to do is look at something in

its entirety and I think again, regardless of your political

affiliation in Northern Ireland, I believe there is a strong case that

that can be made that you in believe there is a strong case that

be better off with this greement. Which by the way was not my

agreement or Meghan O'Sullivan's agreement. This was an agreement we

fashioned over six months, listening to the five parties and trying to

accommodate their priorities. That's yu came back presumably after

Christmas for that final push into the New Year, because you believed,

did you, that the parties were prepared to make the necessary

compromise to actually find an agreement that everybody could sign

up to? You were led to believe that, by what you heard, before Christmas

s that right? Absolutely. As delightful as Belfast can be that

time of year, that's not why we returned. We returned because we

believed there was a very good chance of getting an agreement and

the reason we thought there was because of what we were seeing and

hearing around the table. And when we heard individual parties say -

we've go the a real problem with this position or that, we went to

great lengths to accommodate that. Now, there is obviously limits. And

at some point you run the risk of losing one or more parties if you

try to meet the demands of another. We did our best to come up with

compromises that we thought were well within the bounds of what

everybody could live with. What was the mrood music like during some of

those final round table sessions? Were party representatives engaging

with each other across the table and across the divide in a constructive

way? More often than not, yes. I actually thought the quality of

negotiations was quite good. People put in enormous hours. Made great

efforts. I thought, in many cases, to use an American expression, we

moved the ball considerably. In particular, when it came to dealing

with the legacy of the past. We made considerable progress on parading

and other assemblies as well. Obviously much less so in the realm

of flags and flags and emblems, which turned out to be one of the

more difficult issues to tackle but I thought all in all the quality of

the conversations was good. Again, we would not have returned if we

thought it was a fool's erand. We thought there was a good chance of

succeeding. That wasn't in our imagination. That was based upon

what we were seeing and hearing across the table. At what point, Dr

Haass, did you begin to he will radioise that a deal would not be

done? Well that -- that a deal would not be done? That didn't become

clear to December 30th or 31st. Up until the end we had good reason to

believe that while parties had concerns, we continued to think

there there was a considerable chance they would see the logic of

supporting or endorsing the whole, despite whatever reservations or

concerns they might have. So, if the mood music was good and if you

thought that the deal, as it was taking shape, offered something for

everyone, what was the key sticking point? What unravelled the whole

process, do you think? I don't think there is any single thing. Again,

I'm hoping the process still has a chance of coming together but for

the three parties that were not prepared to endorse it, they each

had obvious concerns. Some were articulated more than others. I

would prefer for them to speak and justify or explain their choices

about what it was that led them to think that they narrowly or that

society as a whole would be better off without this agreement. That's

essentially their responsibility and they ought to - if that's the

position they in fact take - then they ought to be willing to stand up

and justify that choice. That's what accountability is all about in a

democracy. Well, to a greater or lesser extent they've said something

about what the problems were for each of them. They have been quite

clear about that in some of the interviews that they've given. But

you talk about about the past being one of the areas that perhaps

surprisingly you made good progress on. Everybody seemed to think that

the past was effectively a done deal. At bit more work to be done on

parades and flags you had kicked the can down a road a bit but the past

unravelled dramatically in those final couple of days as well, didn't

it? I don't think so. I actually thought by the end you had quite a

degree of consensus on the basic Ince institutions that would be

established to deal with the legacy of the past. Yes you had differences

over the patterns and themes about how you would generalise over

patterns of conflict but gernings at the end there were specifics that

were introduced that I thought captured fairly well, the balance

and totality of the historical record. So, again, quite honestly, I

don't understand why anyone would think that not moving ahead with

what had been a,accomplished would be preferable. I also think, by I a

which, it is unfair to the victims and survivors who deserve better. I

also think it is very bad for Northern Ireland. If there is going

to be success at dealing with the present and future challenges, I

came to the conclusion - and by the way it is not one I started out with

- I came to the conclusion that it is first going to be necessary to

contend successfully with the legacy of the past. So, I believe that the

parties do not move ahead at, if you l tremendous cost to the society, as

well as to those individuals who have already paid an enormous price

sfwl. Would more time have made a difference do you think? ? It is

very hard for me to argue that after six months and more hours than I can

count either individually with the parties or collectively that the

missing ingredient was more time. There was plenty of time and there

still is time, if people are prepared to compromise. The idea

that this agreement can be negotiated and renegotiated and

renegotiated and somehow positions are going to change dramatically and

the calculus of the parties is going to change dramatically is not

realistic. There has been enough time. With respect, Dr Haass isn't

there a bit of a Coentra digs in what you were saying, if wasn't -- a

contradiction in what you are saying, if time wasn't the issue and

you had reached a brick wall on New Year's Eve, where you were not going

to reach resolution, what is the point of setting up an all-party

group, because that's simply buying more time? Well, if that's all it

is, it'll prove to be fairly empty. If, however, there has been a chance

for reflection and reconsideration, then perhaps the parties can very

quickly move to a consensus. I would hope that is the case. As we said in

our statement - while we believe there is a comprehensive case for

advancing comprehensively -- a powerful case for advancing

comprehensively and we belief there are political trade offs in the

agreement. It is obviously up to them, if they want to move out in

only certain directions rather than in all three. I'm not arguing your

basic point. I'm not going to say that six more months would somehow

deliver a fundamentally different proposition than the six months we

have. That's in the the case whatsoever. The realities are not

going to change. Is it time with the British and Irish governments to

reengage with the process to try to move it on to the next stage? Is

that essential? I believe they have a continuing role, both governments.

They are obviously directly affected by what goes on in Northern Ireland.

There are specific issues wherem some cases they have a statutory

role. I would hope they would create a liaison mechanism would this new

working group that is to be established to work with the

parties. I really think the critical factor here will be the willingness

and ability of the five parties to twoshgt and for each of the parties

-- to work together. And each of the parties individually to step up to

the need it make some big decisions and essentially to compromise, not

on core principles but on preferences. No-one was asked to

compromise a core principle here. Everybody was asked to compromise

some preferences and that is something that I would argue is

central to the reality and art of politics. Is part of the difficulty,

Dr Haass that you and Meghan O'Sullivan had no carrot or stick at

your dispose A you couldn't table any incentives or sanctions to get

the party over the life. That was very different to the way things

were in the past, for example, at the time in 19898 of the Good Friday

agreement. -- 1999. Yes, it was one of the oddities of this negotiation

that we were not representing a government. The two of us were there

at the behest of the five parties. But that suggested a willingness on

the part of both of First Minister and Deputy First Minister as well as

the five parties to have us there, to invite us in and not want this

process to succeed, I don't quite see point of it. I actually think,

more generally, there are limits to what outsiders can do. There are

limits to what mediators or facilitate os can do. It is the

parties and leaders who are going to have to live with the consequences

of the agreement. But, true, we were not representing a government. We

could not offer this amount of economic incentive or this amount of

political threat or sanction but I do think there is tre mennous

incentive politic Klein economically inherent in an agreement of this

sort: If this goes ahead, you would have a calmer Northern Ireland.

Police costs would be dramatically down, investment in tourism would be

up. A lot of people are be standing up and talking about the resource

demands of this agreement. I think there are tremendous benefits there

as well if Northern Ireland is judged to be a more viable, more

successful society. Peter Robinson says any working group now

established should try to resolve outstanding disagreements but Martin

McGuinness says it should simply implement the deal as it stands.

Which approach do you back? Well, it is really up to the five parties to

agree on that. As we said, we think there is a strong case for a

comprehensive agreement that embraces all three areas that were

part of the negotiation. Obviously, we believe that December 31 draft is

already to go ahead as-is, and some of the details can be refined when

it comes to, say, writing the legislation or in the

implementation. But if there is a consensus to spend a small amount of

time ironing out some remaining issues, fine. I think what you want

to avoid is where basic issues are opened up and renegotiation becomes

an excuse not to go ahead that. Will become apparent soon enough, if the

effort to renegotiate really is to close a few small areas of

disagreement or not. But I have to tell you, if it is only a few small

areas of disagreement, it is not clear what we have already agreed.

What we have already not agreed. That said, this is up - it is not up

to me, it is up to the five parties to work out. I hope they resolve it

and resolve it quickly. Is there any possibility, finally, if it is just

a few small areas of outstanding disagreement, that you and Meghan

O'Sullivan might come back for one, further, final push, if that sorted

it out once and for all? I really don't see the need for that. The

whole idea was we would do this until December 31st. We gave it a

tremendous amount of time and effort. Professor O'Sullivan has

responsibilities teaching at Harvard. I have responsibilities

here at the organisation I'm the President of. I really believe the

time has come for the five parties to take ownership of this agreement.

And to resolve whatever remaining differences might exist and to begin

the implementation. Look, even if there had been complete agreement on

December 31st, they still would have then had to have move, among other

things, legislation and implementation. They still would

have needed to work things out and you wouldn't have Meghan O'Sullivan

or me or any outsider in the middle of Stormont. They would have to be

on the floor of the Assembly and make this work. So I think the idea

that at this point you need outsiders, is probably wrong. What

you need are insiders, willing to make decisions, willing to lead, and

then willing to go out in public to make the case for why it is they

think this is in the best interests of all the people of Northern

Ireland. Richard Haass speaking to me from New York before we came on

air. Let's hear the thoutss of our Political Editor, Mark Devenport who

is joined by commentators Fionnuala O'Connor and Alex Cain. Thank you

very much. Was this Richard Haass joining in the blame game? To some

extent in a sense he spelled out those who he feels didn't show the

necessary spirit of compromise in terms of naming the two unionist

parties and naming Alliance in his final news conference just after the

New Year's Eve talks broke up he was courteous and paid tribute to the

hard work of all sides but he has been watching from across the

Atlantic and he has turned the tables on those who said no or maybe

to his deal. I think the overall tone of that was really quite

pugnacious. He decided diplomacy has only got him so far and decided to

be a little less diplomatic. Whether it'll make any difference

ultimately, because whilst he said it was too early to do an autopsy on

his process to borrow a line from Naomi Long during the talks, this

patient is most definitely on life support. People on Twitter

describing him as a former diplomat. It sounded very much. That laugh at

the end was a pretty conclusive one - are you mad, he was effectively

saying, do you think I'm come back to this again? I thought it was a

lot sharper than Mark has suggested and there was no attempt at the end

to suggest anything like equivalence between the positions. You asked him

to choose between Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson's verdicts and

said something like he didn't want to do that but then he did

effectively say, obviously we believe that December 31st was, the

draft was ready to go ahead as is and later on said, "And begin

implementation." So he was effectively saying, explicitly

saying, the issue should not be opened up and renegotiated. That is

as conclusive judgment as you can make, whilst still being polite.

Now, he was polite but he did - he did make it very clear where he

thought the fault lay. And he didn't put a tooth in it, either, when he

said he thought it was unfair to the victims and to society in general.

You could say that's not diplomatic but maybe there comes a point when

diplomats have to say, as he did in the end - the role for outsiders has

ended. The time is for people here to step up to the politic. He didn't

say "step up to the plate", to "step up." Effectedively he was saying

unionists have to face the fact that there is a compromise to be made and

they have to make T it is not as though nationalists and republicans

haven't also made compromises in this, most nationalists and

republicans would think on parading and flags, the compromise has been

made by them for quite a long time. Alex, it is interesting, he was

clear in the earlier part of the interview that in his view, this is

a good deal for everyone, including unionists. What do you think

unionist Is reaction will be on his take to what went wrong? I agree

with the other two here. That was a very fed-up, annoyed man, a man who

had been dragged back across the Atlantic after Christmas on the

promise, which must have come from the five parties, he must have had

very good reason for coming back here. He is thoroughly fed-up with

what has happened. I think doesn't understand N terms of union Iism I'm

not sure what happened. Peter Robinson he is not happy with some

aspects of the language, the Ulster Unionists say they are not happy

with any parties at all but haven't set out specific problems. And said

- this is not what we cannot live with. If he was able to say walking

through the resolving doors, a deal is likely, why suddenly, 24 hours

later, none is accepted. There must have been something in the deal that

the DUP and UUP thought was worth supporting. Why did that disappear?

Did they allow themselves to be spooked? What do you think that

reason was? We had positive positions from Mike Nesbitt and all

of a sudden he is against T We have contradictory positions and

attitudes. We had from the beginning Richard Haass saying - send people

to these negotiations who will represent the parties and who can

come back to the parties, who can represent their parties with some

confidence. We had the DUP send, as one of their delegations, someone

who wasn't even part of the party, a member of the party, the orange man

be, Mervyn Gibson. We had the Ulster Unionists sending Geoff Dudgeon an

interesting party who many Ulster Unionists weren't aware was senior

in the party or had been in it for a long time, although he has been in

for quite sometime but what Haass said initially and clearly has

believed should have been happening all along, was that the people who

came to these negotiations would have to go back, would be given

credit and that the parties would then sell what they brought back.

And, obviously, there was some suggestion that they were going to

do that. What we have seen this week -- one of the most striking things

we have seen is the emergence of Jamie Bryson and Willy Fraser saying

- we were there and conning sulted. Whether they were there and people

saw them there, whether their public comments on drafts helped to spook

people who were already not ready to sell to the parties, is something to

be wondered at. Mark, where do you think this leaves

the process from here on in? He has clearly ruled himself out of any

future involvement. But do his comments and his glimpse of what was

going on behind the scenes make it much less likely that the five

parties will in fact be able to sit down together, with some kind of

working group and reach a meaningful agreement? Well, I think it is

really hard to understand yob this working group will make any progress

without Richard Haass when effectively the same people couldn't

make the progress with him and with Meghan O'Sullivan there. I don't

really see quite why they will be able to make that gross, especially

when they are looking at elections in May which is inevitably going to

add pressure there. He has been pretty clear that he thinks they all

shouldville followed Sinn Fein and the SDLP's example in accepting his

deal -- that they all should have. Peter Robinson is being could I in

saying why he can't followed that line. -- being coy. It is clear from

the Ulster Unionists executive and what was said in the Commons today,

that it is a mixture of concern about the status of a strict code of

conduct on parades which the marching orders doented like and

also that balance in relation to the past which a lot of DUP MPs went on

about in the Commons yesterday. We know those are their areas but they

are big areas, still, not the little small technical areas that he says

could be tidied up before going ahead with this agreement. That's

perhaps to say, Mark, you have put your fingers on T they are talking

about sections and details and particular points. What Haass said,

over and over, was they were trying to reach a consensus on things that

everybody would - something for everybody

# It but also things that people would disagree on. That's the only

way you get an agreement. The other people we have not mentioned tonight

are a Alliance. They've ended up in an ununfortunate position being

bracketed with the Ulster Unionists. They have bracketed them together. I

don't know what went on. For the middle of the roaders party of

compromise and moderation, especially who had been at the

receiving end of so much trouble and vilification on flags...

Interesting, Naomi Long tweeted there was real progress in the past,

some progress on parades and none on flags. In one stage on the interview

that's how Richard Haass summed up the success or injury wise of the

process. It is. I think that's the irony as Fionnuala says, the party

that wants everybody to come together should be the one that came

out first. According to Haass and everyone else at the final meeting,

aAlliance was the one most reluctant to sign this. But the other

interesting thing about the unionist thing and Bryson and Fraser have

been mentioned I cannot for the life of me understand why the DUP and UUP

are spooked by these people. They have no electoral mandate and no

real clout anywhere whatsoever. We don't know that's the case, it is

speculation. We do know it is the case... No clout or... They have no

mandate. Both have tried to be elected and haven't been. What I am

saying is if unionism is at this stage of the Assembly and is afraid

of people like that, it says there isn't going to be a deal any time.

Not just in the next few weeks but name. Finally and quickly, what

happens now? Do the two governments have to be more involved to nudge

this forward, in a sense Well Thersea Villiers saying if the

parties can get an agreement she will help to implement it but she

didn't take the suggestions that she should take a lead in this. There is

the problem you raised Richard Haass has no car the yo or stick, only

governments have those incentives to use on people.

-- no carrot or stick. That's it from the View this will

week. I will be back with political reaction to Richard Haass' interview

on an extended Sunday politics at 11.35am here on BBC One on Sunday.

For now, thank you for watching. Goodbye.