It was John Taylor who said it, at any rate most recently: "A week is a long time in Northern Ireland politics."
Just eight days ago, his party leader, David Trimble, confronted the likelihood of defeat and postponed his make-or-break meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council. Now, on the eve of unionism's latest "defining moment", Mr Trimble is once again in bullish form and high good humour.
Twelve months from now he expects the weapons issue to be largely a thing of the past. And a decade from now, he told yesterday's Daily Telegraph, he hopes to see politics "quite, quite different".
Meeting him again, this time at Stormont, it occurs of course that we have been here before - that Mr Trimble was similarly confident just three days before the Rev Martin Smyth claimed 43 per cent of the votes in his last-minute leadership challenge.
However, there is no doubt that Mr Trimble has felt the liberating effect of his decision to go for the IRA offer to put its weapons beyond use and to return to government with Sinn Fein on that basis.
All sorts of meaningless figures are bandied around, about the 40, or 70 or whatever number of undecideds who will determine his future, and that of the Belfast Agreement. But while Mr Trimble anticipates victory, he shares his opponents' sense that it will be close. So we focus on the issues on which he still needs to reassure the doubtful and distrustful in the "soft Yes" and "soft No" camps.
Arms
What does he say to unionists who look at the IRA statement and find no talk of an inventory; no indication of amounts of weapons to be opened to inspection in relation to the total held; no confirmation as to how they are to be secured; no timetable for actual destruction? And who conclude from all this that the republican commitment is still conditional?
Mr Trimble rejects this: "I don't know that it is conditional because . . . they say in that context they will put weapons beyond use. The context is provided for by full implementation. As to timescale, timescale will be provided by de Chastelain. They undertake to engage immediately with him, and he will make regular reports, by which we'll be able to track whether progress has been made."
The UUP leader continues: "Your other questions relate to the inspected dumps, which is a significant move in itself. But it is entirely distinct from the decommissioning process, which is the engagement with de Chastelain. And I prefer to focus on the decommissioning process rather than what is a confidence-building measure - significant though it is . . . because when does an alleged army, engaged in alleged conflict, allow neutral observers, reporting back to their enemy, to inspect any of their stockpile?"
But does he agree that it remains a conditional offer? "Conditional on the new context provided by implementation", he replies confidently.
Alternatives
Mr Trimble's supporters insist there is no alternative. He himself makes much of the absence of an alternative from his opponents. Yet Mr Taylor in the past has suggested that, if decommissioning was not satisfactorily resolved, the Assembly could be stripped of its lawmaking powers and reduced in scale to something akin to the Welsh model. Even this week Mr Trimble has argued that unionists could always walk away in the event of a "default".
In such circumstances, surely he would be leading the demand for an alternative?
Mr Trimble sees a clear distinction: "If this didn't work and we decided to withdraw, it would be for the same purpose as in February, namely giving people a jolt to force them to move further down the path of implementation and their part of the agreement."
There are always theoretical alternatives and the question would be what was realistic and practical in such circumstances. That would be down to the same process of engagement in which he is already involved. However, the obligation on anti-agreement unionists is to spell out their alternative "if the agreement is destroyed by unionists".
Joint authority
Sir Reg Empey has warned unionists that the alternative to the agreement might be joint authority. But some of them might contend that they are close to it already. Specifically, some suggest the joint Prime Ministerial statement of May 5th carries an implicit political agreement by London never again unilaterally to suspend the Executive.
"I don't think that's there at all", comes the reply: "In fact, I'm quite certain it's not there. There was pressure from republicans and others on the British government to repeal the suspension legislation, to give undertakings with regard to it, and no undertaking has been given other than that of consulting with people before exercising the power. That's quite a different matter."
True, the power is retained. But isn't there ambiguity here? The statement says in the event of default - which itself is not defined - that the two governments will conduct a review in consultation with the Executive and Assembly?
"A formal review", corrects Mr Trimble, "in conjunction with the parties, before acting. Yes, they're going to consult before they act."
Sinn Fein in office
Back in December/January the word was that many unionists actually disliked the experience of devolution. Does Mr Trimble share any of Jeffrey Donaldson's unease about Mr Martin McGuinness's suitability to be minister of education? And, more generally, how will he assure his doubters that, this time around, ministers will be collectively responsible and accountable?
"I deplore the playing on emotion that's going on and the attempt to use certain individuals as scarecrows", Mr Trimble says firmly. "There is, however, a real point here. It was obvious - looking not just at Ministers or Assemblymen, but looking at Sinn Fein as a whole - that, as far as democratic politics are concerned, they're not housetrained yet. They need to be housetrained and it is the experience of being in democratic politics which will house-train them."
Coupled with ministers' needs to get legislation through their committees and the Assembly, and to have their budgets scrutinised before adoption on a cross-community vote, Mr Trimble anticipates a "range of checks and balances" kicking-in over time.
The RUC
One seemingly big problem is that, as things stand, Mr Trimble will be unable to tell his party he has secured the retention of the RUC's royal title. And the SDLP/Sinn Fein response suggests that Mr Mandelson can't have much more to give.
Mr Trimble is totally relaxed about the claimed Blair/Clinton fall-out, noting the vigorous denials by Downing Street and the White House.
"What the Unionist Council and community wanted is to ensure that the name of the RUC does not disappear. It's a matter of avoiding a symbolic rejection or defeat of what went before", he says. "The Police Bill, as it stands, already contains the name `RUC' in it, in connection with the `RUC Foundation', which will function within the new police service on a perpetual basis." And he continues: "The Secretary of State has already said he proposes to amend the Bill to put a title in and that there will be, as it were, a legal title which will incorporate the RUC, and a working title which will be quite short and crisp, as indeed it should. So, in that situation, the concern that unionists had has been, will be addressed."
Now to the really big question. Will that prove good enough for Mr Taylor? Does Mr Trimble expect they will be singing from the same hymn sheet tomorrow?
Mr Trimble says he looks forward to discussing all these matters with his deputy when he [Mr Taylor] returns from Japan today, and he is, as ever, grateful for "John's support, which has invariably been given to me in the past".
But not, seemingly, in the past week. So will they be singing from the same hymn sheet tomorrow?
There was never, of course, the ghost of a chance of a clear answer. "We both share the desire to do so", smiles the man who clearly anticipates restoration as Northern Ireland's First Minister come Monday.