THE following is the text of Mr David Trimble's address to the UUP conference:
It has been an eventful year with ups and downs, yet a positive year.
Unionism has progressed. This party has enhanced its capacity to present the unionist case.
You can see from the displays at this conference the party's use of new technology, including the Internet, through which we can address the whole world.
Building on the valuable work of Jim Molyneaux, we have raised our profile in Washington. Our North American bureau has been established. Policy makers in Washington now know that there is another side to the story.
No doubt many there still hanker after romantic nationalist simplicities. But they know that our views cannot be ignored. Events have enhanced our credibility and diminished the credibility of Irish Americans.
The clearest symbol of the change was to be found at this year's White House St Patrick's reception. Remember 1995 - Gerry Adams was a privileged guest. 1996 - he was outside and John Taylor, Jeffrey Donaldson and I were on the inside.
May I thank Jeffrey for his work, and also a very special word of thanks to Ann Smith who runs the North American office.
There has been similar progress at home. The Unionist Information Office, Great Britain, has opened. It will provide a vehicle for the many people across the water who wish to identify with and support the Union.
The first issue of its magazine The Unionist is impressive. We hope that this will develop to influence opinion formers and decision makers in London.
Again we are building on the successful work of others. During the difficulties of this summer, unionism received more sympathetic support from the press in London than the media in Belfast.
Many people in Ulster still do not realise it, but in England, unionism is winning the intellectual argument.
A sign of this can be found in a recent interview given by Tony Blair, when he said that he regarded himself as "a facilitator for the will of the people of Northern Ireland". Again, I thank David Burnside and Patricia Campbell for their work at the Unionist Information Office.
In September 1995 I called for elections before talks. It was not a new call. Ken Maginnis had made the same point in his paper published just before the doomed Framework Document.
Critics dismissed the call but we have succeeded in bringing the Forum into existence. It is not perfect. It is not exactly the body for which we argued. But after a political vacuum lasting 10 years, there is now a democratic institution which can represent the views of the people of Northern Ireland.
The elections were rigged against the Ulster Unionist Party by an unholy alliance of our political rivals within Ulster, together with the Anglo Irish machine. Their object was to damage this party for they knew, even if their unionist collaborator did not, that this party is the real bulwark of the union.
Had they succeeded then the union would be at risk today. But they failed. The Ulster Unionist Party emerged triumphantly - indisputably the largest party in Northern Ireland, despite the shedding of the unionist vote.
I must pay a special word of thanks to the party officers and others who formed the election committee that organised the campaign, ably led by Dennis Rogan and Reg Empey.
One disappointment was that the media failed to recognise the renewal of unionism within our Forum team. Over a dozen of our candidates were under 35, including the youngest candidate to stand for any party.
We saw the effect of this in the Forum a fortnight ago when it debated the multi party talks. What appears to be the next generation of the Democratic Unionists harangued us like an adolescent hooligan. In contrast, there were thoughtful contributions from our benches from Peter King, David Brewster and John Hunter.
I cannot leave the Forum without paying tribute to its chairman. It is only right that the chairman should be drawn from the largest party and I was delighted when our nominee, John Gorman, was appointed. John had not previously been in an elected body but he has coped magnificently, assisted by a sense of humour that is endearing itself to all the delegates present.
May I say how good it is to see Catholic unionists like John Gorman and Patricia Campbell who are prepared to identify themselves publicly with the Ulster Unionist Party. This is nothing new. There have always been Catholic unionists who have supported our party electorally and financially. In the past there have been many Catholics who have been prominent in unionism.
Let me digress to tell you of one - Sir Dennis Henry. He was at the creation of the Ulster Unionist Council in 1905. He unsuccessfully contested elections for what is now West Tyrone in 1906 and 1907 - in the latter being defeated by just seven votes.
He was elected to Westminster to represent South Londonderry in 1916 and 1918, recording the largest unionist majorities ever for that Westminster seat.
In the unionist tradition, Sir Dennis Henry's selection was hotly contested. He was selected as candidate for South Londonderry at a meeting in Kilrea Orange Hall by a margin of seven votes. He was a vigorous fighter for the cause. In the 1918 campaign he told a meeting in Castledawson that "he had seen himself described in the Westminster Gazette as a truculent Orangeman. Well, if that meant that he stuck to his guns and was as good a unionist as any Orangeman, well and good."
I must also note some of the less happy aspects of the year.
This summer saw another attempt by republicans assisted by the Anglo Irish machine to diminish expression of Ulster's distinctive heritage and identity. Unfortunately, some of the protests against this were marred by violence which we all condemned.
But this violence resulted in an orgy of anti unionist criticism. But the critics refuse to acknowledge two important truths. First, that matters would have been much worse but for the responsible leadership of Martin Smyth and others. Secondly, the events of July did not create tension in the community.
That tension existed before and helped to cause the July events.
The tension was created by republican aggression, the machinations of Maryfield and convolutions of the so called peace process.
The events of July have been followed by boycotts and blockades which conference today has rightly condemned. Boycotts are part of the republican plan to turn Ulster into a patchwork of sectarian ghettos. Unionists who respond in kind only do the IRA's work for it.
Sadly, since the summer, we have seen a sharp deterioration in the quality of BBC Northern Ireland. It is not just a matter of an anti unionist bias, although there is such a bias and it is massive: it is a complete loss of normal news values.
Don't just take my work for it, listen to Eilis O'Hanlon writing in the Dublin Sunday Independent in September after a murder by the IRA.
"The following Friday David Dunseith of BBC Radio Ulster's Talkback programme asked, `Four days on, is Sean Devlin's death forgotten?'"
"Four days? David Dunseith should have been listening to Radio Ulster's own news the morning after Direct Action Against Drugs (ha!) murdered Devlin.
"There were 100 new jobs for Ballymena. This is what Radio Ulster considered the main story of the day. Sainsbury's had run into difficulties in their attempts to set up shop in Northern Ireland. This is what Radio Ulster considered the second main story of the day. And of the man murdered by those preaching peace? Not one word. What does the IRA have to do before the BBC considers its vile, self righteous atrocities worthy of remark?"
We can add, what has to happen before Ormeau Avenue concentrates on reporting Northern Ireland events with objectivity and impartially and stops creating events? I am sure that the makers of this week's Spotlight set out to create the event that has put north Belfast unionism in turmoil.
But a bigger problem is the defeatist attitude of some unionists. A week ago, when the Forum was debating the IRA atrocity at Lisburn, Mr McCartney declared that the event would have no effect on the plans of "the two governments": that they would persist in their "inexorable process" to the detriment of the Union.
There are three assumptions in that statement. First, that the bombs would have no effect on government policy; and secondly, that that policy is hostile to the union. These two assumptions" may or may not be correct, time will tell. But I am not going to debate them. It is the third assumption which horrifies me.
The assumption that this hostile policy is "inexorable". Something that is inexorable cannot be stopped. To say that your enemy's plans are inexorable is to say that you cannot prevent him winning. It is rank defeatism. It is the language of those who say that sell out and defeat are inevitable.
This is not the Ulster Unionist attitude. The whole point of being in politics is to make a difference - to make changes - to win for Ulster and the union. So Bob, if you don't believe we can win, if you don't think you can make a difference, you owe it to the people of North Down to make way for someone like Alan McFarland who does!
And we have made changes. Look at the talks. On June 6th the government issued a set of procedural guidelines, an agenda and an opening scenario. It was the usual Anglo Irish stitch up.
On June 12th, we agreed to allow George Mitchell into the chair in exchange for the chance to re open that stitch up.
Success was not guaranteed. The defeatists were loud in their condemnations, for they assumed that we would fail. Rather than help, their instinct was to make it more difficult for us to make changes.
Not everyone was quite so negative. I remember one of their number acknowledging to me that if the changes we sought came about it would be a remarkable climb down by the Irish Government. However, he doubted if we could pull it off.
But we put our heads down and over the next six weeks we worked at it. Gradually our unionist critics came in to help. And now have you recently heard them repeat their criticisms?
A fortnight ago, in the debate in the Forum, I said about this matter that "we were proved right". For good measure I repeated this, looking around at our critics to see if any would rise to intervene. No one stirred!
In the same way we are making changes for the better on the familiar issues of a ceasefire and decommissioning. I will not weary you with the details. The important point is this - these issues concern the basis on which we will proceed into substantive talks. That move will take place in lines mapped out by us.
We are not softening on a ceasefire or decommissioning. Rather we are insisting on an acknowledgment that the time has come to settle this and put Sinn Fein/IRA behind us!
What happens in those talks also depends on how other respond to our approaches. How can there be a commitment to negotiate along with a boycott of "The Forum for Political Dialogue".
Remember when John Hume said he was ready for talks "any time, any place, anywhere". Unfortunately, it is any time but now. Any place but the Forum. Anywhere but where he will have to meet the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland He always seems to need the support of the Irish Government. John, you do not need this crutch. You should stand on your own feet and rely on your own strength. Just like us. We are not looking over our shoulders.
We challenge the SDLP and the government to go on now without Sinn Fein, and with no backward glances. It will be worth going on. For we want to build a Northern Ireland comfortable with its unique heritage. We offer a genuine partnership to all the people of Northern Ireland.
There is only a limited time available. The prospect of an election will soon close down the political process. So, we have only a few months. But we are and have been prepared to do serious business, if others respond.
I want to draw your attention to an interesting event. A member of our party has written a book which has been praised by nationalists. The book is presented as a thorough criticism of our policy.
The author argues that Ulster unionists must accept a bill of rights; an assembly based on proportionality; North South bodies; involvement of local politicians in British Irish relations.
This is presented as a vision of civic unionism. Commentators hail it as wonderful thinking.
I have news for the author. I have news for the political commentators. They have not listened to what Ulster unionists have been saying. If the author had cared to read our statements he would have seen that we have been promoting much of what he has only been thinking.
Unionism has long been committed, to real civil rights for all and proportionality was at the heart of our proposals in the 1992 talks. But we do not go down the path of political parity of esteem on the North South axis. To do so would contradict the very thing which he and which his party want to see - a flourishing Northern Ireland, rooted in a stable political order, based on respect for individuals and the whole community.
The pursuit of Anglo Irishism is the very way to prevent political accommodation within Northern Ireland. Anglo Irishism does not encourage nationalists to seek accommodation with unionists. It encourages them to look to "Big Brother" in Dublin. It encourages them to deny the value of internal arrangements. It encourages them to be intransigent.
The author is right in opposing a retreat into a sectarian laager. But he then makes the familiar mistake of trying to find some sort of compromise between unionism and nationalism. But this is not possible.
A half way house between the union and a united Ireland as in the flimsy Framework would not be stable. We need a firm foundation. We can find that in the accepted principles of international law as applied today in Europe. They start with the recognition of existing frontiers. They provide for the protection of human rights, community rights and fair participation within the state. Our state, of course, is the United Kingdom.
The narrow vision of AngloIrishism must be transcended by putting our relations with our neighbour within the totality of relations of the British islands as a whole. The answer is not a watered down unionism but real unionism. Unionism by its very nature is inclusive. Not an obsessive concentration on the narrow ground. But an awareness of the wider horizon available to us through the union.
It is only unionism that can genuinely be multinational and multi cultural. It believes that the sum of the whole is greater than that of the parts. This is a better vision than anything sectarian Irish nationalism can offer.
This is why we say that the union is our future together - not the aggressive Anglo Irishism that has and will only sharpen antagonism and conflict. It is only the union that can provide a future big enough, a horizon wide enough, to encompass us all. It is only the union that can bind together the wounds of this land.