When David Trimble visited the US this week, a reporter asked him if he had changed since taking over the UUP leadership. He quipped that change was like old age, you don't notice it creeping up on you.
Whether Mr Trimble has changed his fundamental beliefs is a moot point. There is no public evidence for this. His accession to the leadership was greeted with howls of despair in nationalist circles and his dance of triumph with the Rev Ian Paisley at Drumcree three years ago seemed to confirm every nationalist's worst fears.
This appeared to be a man who would take the most hardline, obdurate stance available: like a driver who only knew how to take right turns.
Is today's David Trimble any different? Perhaps not, but the tactics and the style have changed. Perhaps he does not know the Irish language proverb "an te nach bhfuil laidir ni folair do bheith glic" (he who is not strong needs to be clever) but he certainly exemplifies the spirit behind that saying.
Unionists are proud of their hard practicality. In that spirit, when confronted with a pan-nationalist front, combined with pressure from London and the White House to agree a settlement, many unionists feel the wisest course is to stay and fight rather than giving the other side a walkover.
The alternative strategy exemplified by Dr Paisley and the UK Unionist Party is to boycott the process because the game is fixed and nothing you do will affect the predetermined outcome.
The fear that Mr Trimble's supporters have is that, if they leave the table, the remaining parties will agree a settlement under the tutelage of the British and Irish governments.
A combination of a full nationalist turnout, middle-class unionist apathy and compliance from the centre-ground Alliance Party could see such a settlement being carried by referendum and a new dispensation established without unionist input.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement showed that you can huff and puff, march to the top of the hill and down again, but the basic structures remain in place, the Irish civil servants are still at Maryfield.
One point on which nationalists and unionists agree is on their basic distrust of Perfidious Albion. Give them a clear field and you never know what those wily Sasanachs will get up to - best to stay and keep a good eye on them.
In that spirit, Mr Trimble has stayed with the talks process, admittedly without any obvious enthusiasm. Today, in line with party rules, his name will be submitted for re-election. At time of writing there is no sign of an opponent although a rival could theoretically emerge on the day.
The occasion is expected to be low key. UUP insiders said there would be the "usual leader adoration" which has become an inseparable part of all such occasions with all parties.
Party sources said the leader's message would be, in effect: "Wise up on Strand Two - the North/ South relationship - if you need a settlement." Indeed, Mr Trimble said in the US this week that this issue could be the rock on which the process foundered.
The SDLP is adamant that the unionists are the ones who need to "wise up" and face reality. There would be no settlement unless there were North/South bodies with executive powers.
Mr Trimble and other unionists, echoing remarks made by Mr Tony Blair to a group of visiting Americans in Downing Street, have suggested a settlement formula could be found with a little flexibility in language but they complain that the SDLP shows no sign of any "give" in this respect.
Unionists were quite comfortable with the Propositions on Heads of Agreement document released by the two governments on January 12th. SDLP figures like Mr Seamus Mallon also professed considerable satisfaction.
However, Sinn Fein "went ballistic" and it was said that one of their most senior negotiators almost had to be tied down, so great was his anger. Partly it was a question of timing and perception. A strong unionist "spin" in the media ahead of the document's publication predisposed many nationalists to reject it, particularly against a background of sectarian murders by loyalist paramilitaries.
But the Government in Dublin saw the "Propositions" document as an essential ploy for keeping the unionists in the talks. The "Frameworks" were regarded as too "green", now the unionists had a document they could use as a basis for negotiation.
The final settlement, if and when it comes, may be a subtle compromise between the "Frameworks" and the "Propositions". Already the SDLP is showing intense interest in the notion of a commission on policing, although a similar body to examine the issue of prisoners is generating far less enthusiasm.
Unionists claim to be puzzled by the meaning of the words "executive powers". As far as they are concerned, this is a nationalist euphemism for an embryo all-Ireland government, as outlined in his controversial radio interview by Mr David Andrews.
The UUP says it wants to "talk turkey" with what it sees as an enigmatic and uncommunicative SDLP leadership on this issue and alleges the main nationalist party is not prepared to engage in a serious way. The SDLP leadership's body language reminds UUP sources of the period before the last round of talks collapsed in 1992.
Mr Trimble entered the lions' den of Washington and the White House this week. Nobody put a gun to his head and said, "sign this" but by all accounts there was considerable pressure on him from US politicians at the highest level to make an historic compromise with nationalism and engage in direct dialogue with Sinn Fein.
Sinn Fein's vote may not be required to agree a settlement but it is unlikely the SDLP can come to terms with the unionists unless the UUP agrees to direct talks with republicans. However, there is no sign at this stage that such an encounter is about to take place.
UUP sources do not expect much by way of overt opposition to Mr Trimble at today's meeting. Since the process only has another three weeks to run, what would be the point? Mr Trimble's internal opponents are likely to keep their powder dry until they see the small print of any settlement plan. The devil is in the detail.