Eoghan Harris, who is an Irish senator, dropped the bombshell at the annual get-together of the Castlereagh Central Branch of the UUP, in the Reform Club in Belfast.
As councillors, MLAs and party grandees looked on, he said: "What I am going to suggest will, I am sure, outrage many of you.
"It's the unionist equivalent, in 2007, to the consternation I evoked in 1989 when I told the (left-wing) Workers Party that it had to embrace liberal capitalism and the market economy or die.
"For what I am suggesting is that there no longer is a real foundation for the continued existence of two unionist parties and that, from a position of relative strength, you should approach the DUP about the creation of a new united unionist party."
Senator Harris – a political thinker, once close to David Trimble, and viewed as a friend of unionism – was not just saying the UUP should disappear, but the DUP too.
He noted "politics is a cruel trade" and said that while the UUP deserved "the lion's share of the credit for the peace and prosperity which the people of Northern Ireland now enjoy", it was the DUP being lauded here and internationally.
He continued: "Paisley and Robinson have moved onto your territory and effectively claimed it. So what are you going to do about it?"
Harris said that "if you decide to soldier on, I think the future is pretty plain". Ulster Unionism could endure but it was doubtful it would ever retrieve its former glories.
But in a merger with the DUP – to form a new party – it could "flourish", he suggested.
Peter Robinson has offered talks on a unionist electoral pact, but Harris said to the UUP: "Why not take the initiative from what is still a relatively strong position and become the proactive party for a new united unionism?"
And to the DUP, too, he warned they were "not invincible" and must recognise there was no strategic basis for two competing unionist parties.
Speaking later, Sir Reg Empey said: "The UUP has always brought people to talk to us who challenge us rather than people who tell us what we want to hear. That has always been one of the distinctions between us and the DUP.
"I have already responded to the DUP's offer of a meeting and we are prepared, in good faith, to have a wide-ranging discussion about matters including maximising the unionist vote.
"We have had a long and unhappy history of failed attempts at long-lasting co-operation between the parties so there is no way of predicting these matters."


In the full text of his recent speech, controversial Irish Senator Eoghan Harris tells the Ulster Unionist Party that they should look at electoral co-operation with the DUP.

Politics is a cruel trade and I know its hard for the Ulster Unionist Party- the party that made the Good Friday Agreement possible, and which can claim the lions share of the credit for the peace and prosperity which the people of Northern Ireland now enjoy- it is hard for the UUP to see Paisley's DUP, the party that denounced it for being in government with 'terrorists' now being lauded here and internationally for the performance of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness as co-heads of the government at Stormont.
Not only has the DUP embraced what Lord Bew has called the 'Hitler-Stalin' pact but it has been electorally rewarded for it. Paisley and Robinson have moved onto to your territory and effectively claimed it. So what are you going to do about it? Is there anything that you can do about it ? I believe there is, but it will take courage.


What I am going to suggest will I am sure outrage many of you- it's the Unionist equivalent in 2007 to the consternation I evoked in 1989 when I told the Workers Party that it had to embrace liberal capitalism and the market economy or die. For what I am suggesting is that there no longer is a real foundation for the continued existence of two Unionist Parties and that from a position of relative strength you should approach the DUP about the creation of a new united Unionist Party. I see that Peter Robinson has suggested that your parties should meet to discuss possible areas of co-operation electorally. This proposal makes a lot of sense but it should be part of a more profound engagement between the two organisations.


I know that back in the 1970s there was much talk of a merger between the parties. Nothing came of if in large part for two reasons. One was Ian Paisley's bruising personality and his clear desire to dominate any merged party. The other was the understandable concern of many Ulster Unionists with the influence of the Free Presbyterian Church in any new organisation But in 2007 we are in a very different situation. Paisley is top-dog but in radically new conditions.


First Paisley's party is no longer the one-man band it was in the 1970s / 1980s . It has already won over some former members of this party and clearly the recent electoral results show that it has extended its support into sections of what was traditional UUP support. Second the recent uprising against Ian Paisley within his church and the fact that he will have to resign as Moderator in January shows very clearly that Paisley has been forced to chose between politics and religion and that it is the DUP that has come first. This is a development of real significance for the future of politics here. It has profound implications for relations between the UUP and the DUP.


What it demonstrates is that politics on the island has entered a new period. Not the 'end of history' as the late and unlamented Secretary of State for NI, Peter Hain, recently claimed. Sinn Fein has suffered a major setback in the recent general election in the Republic, but it is far from accepting the long-term legitimacy of partition or the Northern Ireland state. The SDLP shows few signs of reconsidering its strategy of competing for suitably 'green' credentials with the Shinners. And while the southern political class has signed up for the acceptance of Northern Ireland's right to exist, there still remain powerful forces in the Republic's media and in the collective unconscious of the southern electorate that cleave to a nationalist narrative of the carnage which Northern Ireland endured for 30 years.


As for the British political and administrative class, despite the herculean efforts of David Trimble, it remains profoundly uninterested in NI and there are little reserves of support or sympathy for the Unionist cause. Read Alastair Campbell's diaries and you will see how charmed and impressed he is with Martin McGuinness and how hard he finds it to show much understanding or sympathy for the massive problems Trimble was having selling the Agreement to the Unionist electorate.


Naturally I am not suggesting that the constitutional settlement is in any danger, or that Unionists will again have to take to the trenches to defend Ulster. Not at all. Unionists have made real gains in the last decade. The violent republican tradition which threatened Unionists from the formation of the state is gone for good. Neverthless, a republican and nationalist challenge still exists and it will have more powerful allies south of the border than any you can conjure up in the rest of the UK.


Thankfully, and thanks in may ways to the work of both Bertie Ahern and David Trimble, you can look south to the many many people in all the main parties who have no time for Shinner apologetics or for northern nationalist whinging. But Unionists would be in a stronger position in the Republic and the rest of the UK if both major Unionist parties joined together in one formation.


Because in such a combination, the breadth of vision and pluralism of the UUP could complement the harder edged but more organisationally vital culture of the DUP. A united party would ensure that Unionists punched above their weight in the Executive and cross-border bodies. It would ensure that when policing and justice are devolved they will be in safe hands. Energies that are wasted in strategically point-less point scoring against each other in the Assembly or in the local media could be used effectively to maximise Unionist influence not only in the political institutions but in the broader process of ideological struggle between unionism and republicanism and nationalism.


There are many tasks which need urgent attention. And one of the major tasks is that of contesting the history of the past 37 years. Progressive democrats in both states have a major job of work to do particularly in not allowing those who lost the war to win the battle to define our recent history. In this matter I must respectfully claim that Unionists have not been good at countering the Shinner narrative which can rely on BBC NI

through a mixture of bad elements and a lazy unreflective 'leftist' world view that is as unsympathetic to Unionism as it is to Israel and the USA.


Tempting though it may be to get a short-term boost by exploiting the angst of some DUP supporters with Ian Paisley's 'Chuckle Brothers' routine with Martin McGuinness, it is a pointless exercise when the two parties should be preparing a joint approach to the Eames/Bradley review team who are considering how Northern Ireland should deal with its past.


So my suggestion to you is to take Peter Robinson up on his offer of talks about co-operation . Start with working together to ensure that South Belfast returns a Unionist to Westminster at next general election and that the absentee MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone is replaced by an agreed Unionist MP. But make that the beginning of a process that ends four decades of unionist fighting unionist. Remember it was DUP spoiling tactics that gave Fermanagh and S Tyrone to Bobby Sands. Now let them make amends.

I know that many of you have strong reasons of principle for resisting my suggestion. Others remember decades of DUP negativity and abuse. There are long-standing local rivalries and antagonisms. You may well reject my advice and continue to go it alone relying on your sizeable number of Assembly seats and strong local government presence. And in some senses, of course, the DUP is not invincible. It has suffered some defections and may suffer more. It is not clear how smooth the transition to a post-Paisley leadership will be. Events have a habit of confounding our best laid plans.


Let me ask you a question. what is is the strategic basis for two competing Unionist parties? And the answer is none whatsoever. From which it follows that if Sir Reg were to explore the offer of Peter Robinson, he would be showing the same steel as Michael Collins whose supreme virtue, according to Lord Birkenhead, was that he was " loyal to the facts."


I believe the UUP will flourish if it is loyal the facts. But if you decide to soldier on, I think the future is pretty plain. The UUP can endure although I doubt that it will ever retrieve its former glories and the basic long-term demographic trends are not in its favour. So why not take the initiative from what is still a relatively strong position and become the proactive party for a new united Unionism ?


In doing so you would true to the vocation of the original Ulster Unionist Council in 1905 which sought to unite all those who supported the Union . Then you had powerful allies in the rest of the UK against the threat of Home Rule. Now Gordon Brown's vision of Britishness does not cross the Irish Sea. Now its up to yourselves to ensure that Brown and Cameron realise that Ulster remains as much of the UK as Scotland or Wales. A good start would be two extra Unionist MPs at Westminster after the next general election and a united Unionist presence in the House of Commons.


In conclusion, I ask you to ask yourself a simple question. Short of stagnation, is there any real alternative to a deal with the DUP. And on what Brian Lenihan, a much loved Minister of the Irish Government called mature reflection you will find that, to quote Mrs Thatcher now, "there is no alternative. " None that makes any sense, that is.