THE Stormont talks process resumes next Monday. The British government hopes that, chastened by the summer's events, Mr Trimble will return with a more evident determination to seek an accommodation.
But is that likely? The Ulster Unionist leader lets nothing slip by. The UUP has been making a positive contribution and will continue to do so: "What would worry me about what you say is that there might be those involved in policy making who think that we would now adopt a different approach. That would be a mistake. We will be positive ... but we're not there to be ordered about by other people.".
With which thought in mind, Mr Trimble turns his attention to "people like Albert Reynolds, who say the two governments have in effect to impose something".
We will return to the question of "imposition". In the short term, Mr Trimble says he wants to establish if there is a willingness on the part of the SDLP and others to make progress within the existing format - that is to say, the talks process without Sinn Fein.
If there is no such willingness, his anxiety is how the parties might manage the situation and prevent the process collapsing. The UUP has some proposals to put to the SDLP but Mr Trimble doesn't want to rehearse them here.
All that said, he admits he is "not overly optimistic" that much will be achieved because, "I don't think there's going to be the requisite element of engagement by nationalists" this side of British and Irish elections.
I suggest this pre election period might be advantageous to Mr Trimble - that Mr Major would be supportive and that Mr John Bruton is as amenable to an accommodation as any Taoiseach he's likely ever to confront. But the UUP chief takes this with "a pinch of salt". And while he may accept Mr Bruton's bona fides, he adds: "But I'm not convinced he has influence on his Government's Northern Ireland policy. I have never actually seen him have an impact on his Government's Northern Ireland policy ... My contacts with him always gave me the impression of him being detached."
Mr Trimble rejects the joint framework proposals as the basis far a solution - and recoils from the suggestion of a "Sunningdale Mark Two" as the minimum nationalists might accept. He affirms the need to deal with "the totality of relations" by which he means "something which recognises the British Isles dimension, and within that locates whatever Belfast/Dublin relationship there is, while realising the Belfast/London relationship is necessarily the most significant".
So is the key dynamic to be provided by the North/South relationship, between a devolved assembly and the Dail, or by London/Dublin? Mr Trimble is direct: "By London. London is where the dynamic comes within the UK because London is the financial centre, the fiscal centre. I think there's a failure by a lot of people to get down to the specifics of the most important relationships within the country - taxes, benefit's and the economics of the situation.
"There is also a failure to appreciate the necessary limits that will exist with regard to any institution that exists in Northern Ireland in the future."
Any future assembly, he says, "will be on a lesser scale than Stormont" and "to talk about the dynamic relationship as being Belfast this, Belfast that, is missing the fact that any future assembly will be somewhere between Labour's proposals for Scotland and Wales".
As far as Mr Trimble is concerned, "all the important decisions with regard to Northern Ireland will continue to be made in London". He chides me for calling this Jim Molyneaux's old "integrationist" agenda, saying they've resolved that by the simple expedient of having integration and devolution.
I wonder why the lack of ambition, when Labour is promising wholesale reform in Britain. But Mr Trimble thinks Mr Tony Blair is already retreating from Labour's "misconceived" idea for a tax raising parliament in Scotland. Mr Trimble denies any inclination to play the situation long but betrays no obvious fear of a Labour government.
Mr Blair, of course, is planning to win popular support for Scottish and Welsh devolution by way of referendums. Has it occurred to Mr Trimble that he and Dr Mo Mowlam could do the same with a package for Northern Ireland? The UUP leader notes Mr Major has already promised that "any proposals that are agreed" will be put to referendum. This is the famous triple lock - requiring agreement by parties, parliament and people. But he tells me: "If you're hinting the referendum would be used as a way of over ruling elements within Northern Ireland, that is something people would be well advised to be very cautious with regard to."
FOR Mr Trimble, the key element in the triple lock "has always been the first, that the parties have to agree. And I think it would run completely contrary to comments Blair and Mowlam have made on the need for consent to say we've decided not to bother with agreement, we're going to impose something'...".
The point I'm making is that the parties may never agree - burdened by history might not arguably, reasonably, be expected to agree. In that event, surely a future - British government might make a considered judgment, put together a package it believes fair and reasonable and put it to the people?
Mr Trimble thinks "the danger with this line of thought is that people might drift into the (Kevin) McNamara position, which was that consent doesn't apply to anything except the final act of transfer of sovereignty ..." And he doesn't care for this "exploration of the limits and application of the consent principle".
It would not be wise, he says, "for government to think it satisfies the consent principle by operating by way of referenda. You do need the agreement of the principal elements in society". He readily concedes unionists would not always have argued thus, and I wonder if he's conceding he might lose a referendum: "No, I'm not. I'm actually saying there are limits to how far you can proceed in the way you have suggested. Because if you've got a situation where some of the major elements in society are strongly opposed to what you're doing it doesn't matter even if you manage a narrow majority in a referendum.
In essence then, and as a matter of practicality, Mr Trimble argues the agreement of the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP is necessary to the consent principle.
TURNING to the present, would Mr Trimble respond differently to a second IRA ceasefire - and would he permit Sinn Fein into talks without preconditions? The UUP leader is again unequivocal: "The legislation that we're operating under establishes pre conditions in terms of a genuine ceasefire being present, and also referentially to the Mitchell principles.
"Now our interpretation of Mitchell actually did shift, by saying that instead of insisting on prior decommissioning ... proving one's good faith by taking steps first on decommissioning ... we're prepared to accept decommissioning alongside talks. But we need to be assured that is going to happen ... So, no."
But if he was a republican, would he call a second ceasefire without a very different result guaranteed Mr Trimble says: "On what I take to be the basic objectives of the republican movement - which are to achieve their core goals irrespective of the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland - then I can see how they would not be terribly happy with the stance the British government and the unionist parties are taking."
And he concludes: "I think there's got to be a genuine commitment to the democratic, process and that has to come. We re prepared to encourage that if it is going to come - but the evidence is against it."