Analysis:Waiting six weeks for a deal is not as simple as it appears, writes Northern Editor Gerry Moriarty
On the face of it, the Rev Ian Paisley on Saturday made an offer to Gerry Adams, Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern that is very hard for them to refuse - a deal, not by today but in six to eight weeks' time. So where's the problem? It is, however, much more complicated, multidimensional and high-risk than that simple evaluation.
One problem is, where's the guarantee of powersharing in May? And there are others as well. For instance, is it in Sinn Féin's interest for this to work? Can the DUP be trusted? Are their more Machiavellian agendas at play? And what about Peter Hain's credibility, and by extension Tony Blair's?
According to the DUP, Hain said on 56 occasions that it was "devolution or dissolution" by today. How can that threat hold now?
Let's address Hain's standing first. His strategy yesterday was to put the ball back in the court of the DUP and Sinn Féin. If there is no deal today, he will dissolve, he says. But if the DUP and Sinn Féin can work out an agreement between them then, he intimated, he would introduce special legislation, as the DUP requires, allowing restoration of the Northern executive in May.
Therefore if, face-to-face, Paisley and Adams somehow agree to a new May deadline today, then it certainly won't be "devolution or dissolution"; it will be emergency Westminster legislation providing for six more weeks of direct rule followed by powersharing.
It should also provide for the suspension of the introduction of water rates bills, which were due to go out tomorrow.
If you say that something will happen 56 times - presuming the DUP counted correctly - and it doesn't, then you would expect Hain to be red-faced, if not to actually resign. But here you must bear in mind a cardinal rule of Northern Ireland politics: in Britain, where Hain and his Northern Ireland Office ministers get their votes, people blame the Irish "natives", and no one else, when things go wrong, while preserving some kudos for direct-rule ministers if actual progress is made.
And consider if May happened. Not only would the IRA have ended its campaign and disarmed, and Sinn Féin endorsed the PSNI, but the final prize, a Stormont government, would also be achieved under Hain's watch and without a sense of imposition. Gordon Brown and Hain are understood not to be buddy-buddy, but with such a record how could the future British prime minister keep him out of cabinet? In such circumstances Hain would tolerate some personal embarrassment in the days ahead.
But that's assuming May happens, which is the main story. The talking, as ever, was continuing yesterday and last night, and is likely to continue today. In a real sense, if this is to work, Paisley must sell the deal to Adams. But Paisley has never - well, not really - spoken directly to the Sinn Féin president.
But the word from the DUP on Saturday and from official sources is that - on the programme for government committee, which could sit today ahead of the scheduled Assembly gathering - they will speak. You can't overestimate how important this would be.
Privately, on many occasions Paisley, an arch strategist himself like others in his party, has acknowledged that this is one of the final cards he would play, and that he would only do so at the most crucial of times. That time seems now.
Nobody will be expecting handshakes, but if they do speak - and achieving that objective was part of the continuing work in progress last night - some form of personal chemistry, no matter that it is of very low intensity, will be established. That is in the nature of these two political beasts, probably more so with Paisley.
What they can talk about is the resolution passed by 102 votes to 10 of the DUP executive members on Saturday. That vote demonstrates that, regardless of different forces and factions within the DUP, it is a united party.
If you examine the wording of the resolution (published above), you will see that the language is carefully crafted. It is not typical hardline DUP-speak, but is non-confrontational, pointing out an opportunity for government in May in which Ian Paisley would be first minister and Martin McGuinness deputy first minister. Huge prizes.
Which brings us to Adams. If there is direct engagement today with Paisley, then he must decide whether Plan B suits his and Sinn Féin's ambitions or whether May is worth waiting for.
May would seem the logical choice because if the DUP welshes on the deal he will still have Plan B. Furthermore, prospective powersharing is probably better for his Southern election chances, not to mention the importance of keeping the Sinn Féin Northern troops employed in Assembly politics.
Here also, it's probably best to consider another potential complication: when Sinn Féin makes concessions, it demands concessions from one or both governments in exchange. As SDLP leader Mark Durkan warned yesterday, this could create a "twilight zone where no doubt Sinn Féin will look for more concessions in return for the legislation and the DUP will use those concessions as a further excuse for avoiding sharing power".
You can see the danger of more lost deadlines. Therefore for this to work Sinn Féin mustn't get too greedy, and Paisley must be a man of his word. A politician and a preacher, the DUP leader trades on being such a man, while Adams understands both the risks and the potentially historic rewards.