IN THEIR dealings with the Ulster Democratic Party it is understandable that, up to this point at least, political pundits, other politicians and the public at large have concentrated their attention solely on three broadly related issues - our ability to help sustain the loyalist ceasefire, our attitude to decommissioning and our position regarding the phased release of political prisoners.

These issues, particularly the first two, are, quite rightly, of primary concern to everyone who genuinely desires a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Northern Ireland. All three are major issues of concern to the Ulster Democratic Party. We too desire a peaceful, democratic resolution of our problems and are actively involved with others in trying to achieve that goal.

We believe that it can best be achieved through a process of negotiation - as all encompassing as possible - taking place within the context of a peaceful environment. Republicans, by collapsing their ceasefire, have clearly indicated that this is a concept with which they are, at the very least, uncomfortable.

But regardless of that, the Ulster Democratic Party is determined to persevere in our efforts to create the type of society we believe the people of Northern Ireland so richly deserve. But, in real and descriptive terms, what would this society that we envisage look like?

That may seem an obvious question that we in the UDP, as political confidants of the largest paramilitary grouping in Northern Ireland, would have been required to answer before now. But no, it remains a question that we have never been asked.

No one has ever sought to explore in any depth the political philosophy of loyalism, or sought to question us on our ideas for the future of Northern Ireland. This is a serious omission as we obviously believe we have an important role to play in developing a new and healthier political landscape within Northern Ireland.

The two governments have, quite rightly in our view, talked in terms of any lasting settlement being founded on a willingness by all concerned to address, in real terms, the "totality of relationships". Our problems arise not with the concept, but with the two governments' definition of what they mean by the "totality of relationships" and with their lop sided notion of how this totality can be addressed.

They have clearly indicated that they see the term "totality of relationships" as describing three, distinct sets of relationships, i.e., between Belfast and London Belfast and Dublin and between Dublin and London.

However, we would strongly contend that there are actually four sets of relationships which have to be seriously addressed, with, in our view, the omitted relationship being the most important of the four, i.e., the future relationship between the unionist and nationalist people within Northern Ireland. Unless and until this is resolved, then all effort in any of the other three, spheres, interrelated as they are, is meaningless.

We must seek to build structures of devolved governance within Northern Ireland which, as far as is possible, can command the allegiance of all our people. To this end, the Ulster Democratic Party will argue for a devolved assembly which will operate on the basis of power and responsibility sharing right across the political spectrum.

All our people must feel a common ownership of future political institutions and, thereby, a common responsibility for the good governance of our society.

Human, religious and civil rights must be protected by the adoption, and incorporation in law, of an agreed Bill of Rights which itself would be protected and upheld by a Supreme Court. Such a Supreme Court must be readily accessible to any citizen - or group of people - who feel that their civil or religious rights have been violated.

There can be no mileage in any of us seeking to create a society where the rule of law or the protection of civil and religious liberties is tilted in favour of one section of our people over another in Belfast.

A future Assembly though ultimately subservient to Westminster, would have control over those issues of specific local interest which at present are dealt with by various Ministers of State and NIO officials, i.e., health, housing, education, social services, etc.

Foreign, fiscal and national security matters would remain within the control of Westminster.

Northern Ireland should retain its present level of representation at Westminster in order that it be able to play its full part in discussing issues relevant to the United Kingdom as a whole.

The UDP firmly believes that arrangements such as these would go a long way towards properly addressing two sets of relationships - that between the Northern Ireland people as a whole and between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Of course, we realise as well as anyone that the main area of contention will revolve around proposals for future relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland or, more specifically, what form such relationships should take.

In the best interests of both their peoples it is always desirable that two neighbouring democracies have as co operative and friendly a relationship as possible! This is as true of Northern Ireland and the Republic as it is of any other neighbouring democracies.

However, it is equally true that friendship and co operation cannot be forced upon neighbouring states - either they develop or they don't. The best one can do is to seek to create the most favourable conditions for such a development to evolve naturally.

We believe the Republic of Ireland could take the lead in this respect by relinquishing its illegal and, in light of its declaration of adherence to the principle of consent, contradictory territorial claim.

In seeking to consider how best the UDF could address the actual "totality of relationships" - and, in so doing, by definition, also consider future North/South relations - we quickly realised that the two governments had themselves failed to consider relationships in their totality.

The Framework Document sets out at great length the two governments ideas and notions on how future North/South co operation might take form - but noticeably fails to devote anything like a similar amount of space to exploring ideas concerning possible East/West relationships.

This deliberate omission lends credence to unionist concerns that by "totality of relationships" the two governments really mean North/South relations: in other words, the much feared Trojan Horse of all Ireland institutions leading, inevitably, to some form of all Ireland unitary state.

We believe that these suspicions can be allayed if the "totality of relationships" as they exist in their true form are adequately and equally addressed.

If both governments are really serious about adequately addressing the "totality of relationships", then let us do it within the context of the EU. As geographically peripheral members of the European Union, both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have an obvious commonality of concern.

It makes perfect sense, therefore, that any attempt to address the "totality of relationships" in a mutually beneficial manner should be geared towards a form of structured co operation on a British Isles (or these islands) basis within the context of the European Union.

This would involve elected representatives from various regions within the UK and the Republic coming together to explore avenues of potential mutual co operation and areas of mutual concern.

David Adams is a negotiator in the multi party talks for the Ulster Democratic Party, which is close to the thinking of the Ulster Defence Association.