Unionist leaders hailed the agreement with a violent denunciation, calling it a “betrayal” of the British government and spreading violence. The Rev. Ian Paisley, chairman of the Democratic Unionist Party, predicted that the consequences of the agreement would be “too terrible to think about” and warned the Dublin government that “the total anger of the Unionists will fall on your heads.” No one could have predicted, after the “out, out” press conference of November 1984, that if the two Prime Ministers met a year later for a summit, this would be characterized by the signing of an Anglo-Irish agreement. The events that led to the evolution of Mrs Thatcher`s thinking go back not a year, but four years. The excessive language of politicians, the threats of violence of Protestant gunmen, who have a plethora of weapons, and the gloomy mood of the entire trade union community, from university intellectuals to unemployed workers, do not bode well for the reconciliation of the two northern communities, which is ideal for reaching the agreement. When the two governments worked on the agreement, there was no reason to doubt the words of Barry White, an editor of the Belfast Telegraph and a respected observer of the Nordic scene, who had written a few months earlier: “Protestant trade unionists in Northern Ireland and Roman Catholic nationalists were never further away.” At his separate press conference, Prime Minister FitzGerald clung to the language and the timidly hopeful tone of the communiqué. He described the discussions as “broad and constructive.” He refused to be drawn into a public disagreement with the British Prime Minister. But their statements have caused a storm of criticism in Ireland. Hume, for example, characterized his language as a provocation of “deep and legitimate anger and insults.” Back in Dublin, during a closed-door meeting of his party`s MPs, FitzGerald described their remarks as “insulting for free,” a phrase that quickly entered the newspapers.