ANALYSIS: Both governments believe Mr Adams's speech could lead to a breakthrough, writes Gerry Moriarty.
Is Gerry Adams P. O'Neill? A month or two back the Sinn Féin president, Mr Adams, in very emphatic terms told Vincent Browne on his RTÉ radio show that not only was he not on the IRA army council but he was not and never had been a member of the IRA.
Well, it looks like Mr Tony Blair doesn't believe him because yesterday the British Prime Minister accepted that when Mr Adams spoke in Stormont yesterday he was personally expressing the views of the IRA and its leadership. Mr Blair also accepted that Mr Adams positively answered two of the three questions he, the Prime Minister, posed to the IRA in London last week about its future intentions.
There is another day and night or two of talking in this process, as far as the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and the Prime Minister are concerned.
They hope that it will get them somewhere - to a breakthrough.
Over recent weeks, particularly during the brouhaha over Mr Adams and Mr Martin McGuinness ferrying IRA statements to the governments and the Ulster Unionist Party leader, Mr David Trimble, there has been a blurring of the distinction between Sinn Féin and the IRA.
That distinction was never more smudged than yesterday. When The Irish Times put it to Mr Blair's chief spokesman that the import of the Prime Minister accepting that Mr Adams had answered two of his three questions was that Mr Adams spoke for the IRA leadership.
He replied: "The question is irrelevant. We are satisfied that this is the position of the IRA."
The spokeswoman for the Taoiseach was a little more circumspect, but only a little.
To the same question she replied: "We are dealing in good faith with Gerry Adams . . . The Government thinks we are close to a solution."
Let's go through the questions raised by Mr Blair last Wednesday and Mr Adams's answers. Question 2 in synopsis was: Was the IRA committed to decommissioning all its weapons?
"The IRA has clearly stated its willingness to proceed with the implementation of a process to put arms beyond use at the earliest opportunity.
"Obviously this is not about putting some arms beyond use. It is about all arms," said Mr Adams - on behalf of the IRA, as far as the Taoiseach and Prime Minister are concerned.
Cynics will wonder about the when of arms disposal. But again the governments take comfort in the line, "at the earliest opportunity".
It's a phrase that could be dangerously stretched, but as the Government spokeswoman noted, this is about good faith.
Question 3 was: If the governments implement all aspects of the Belfast Agreement "does that mean the complete and final closure of the conflict?" Mr Adams said: "If the two governments and all the parties fulfil their commitments this will provide the basis for the complete and final closure of the conflict."
Nice harmony of language there. But a cynic will say that as far as the IRA is concerned "final closure of the conflict" is a united Ireland.
No, no, said a London source, the end of the conflict is contingent on the governments and parties fulfilling "their commitments", i.e. implementing the agreement in full, to which the governments are committed.
And while Mr Adams complained about the Ahern-Blair Hillsborough blueprint, still under wraps, being conditional on the IRA fulfilling a list of obligations the republican leader allowed that the package "presents an important opportunity to move the process forward."
Hardly a ringing endorsement of the proposals, but again we are back to trust, and right now the governments appear willing to trust Mr Adams.
Mr Blair's first question was: Will the IRA end all paramilitary activity?
Mr Adams said: "The IRA leadership has stated its determination to ensure that its activities will be consistent with its resolve to see the complete and final closure of the conflict.
"The IRA statement is a statement of completely peaceful intent.
"Its logic is that there should be no activities inconsistent with this."
Close, but not quite good enough, said Dublin and London, we need a firmer commitment that it is stopping "punishment" attacks, arms procurement, targeting etc. Surely, though, the answer to question 3, that the IRA will go out of business, implicitly says it will end all activity.
"We want an end to all activity now," explained a London source, supported by Dublin. The two governments will continue to work on question 1.
Rather than a new IRA statement all that the governments seem to require is a statement from Mr Adams that paramilitary activity will cease forthwith, and - hey presto! - the Assembly election campaign can proceed without any fear of further postponement.
Here, however, we mustn't forget about Mr Trimble. Mr Adams would dismiss as journalistic nuisance-making the P.O'Neill/Gerry Adams question. But it is a relevant query because yesterday Ulster Unionists described Mr Adams's speech as disappointment because it was by "Mr Adams and not the IRA".
They added: "This statement does not provide any basis on which suspension can be lifted." To make this work Mr Trimble must tune to the same wavelength as Mr Ahern and Mr Blair. That's tricky, because there is a lot of unionist cynicism out there, particularly considering how over recent weeks persuading republicans to clearly state their future intentions was like pulling teeth.
If question 1 is answered and Mr Trimble signs up to the agreement then he will come under fierce pressure from anti-agreement forces in and outside his party. At the very least the IRA would need to offer him the carrot of a very speedy, very substantial and verifiable act of decommissioning.
As Mr Adams said in his speech, the IRA is prepared for a disarmament move, but if it is in secret, and without an inventory, like the other two acts, it will be ridiculed by unionists.
In the next 24 to 48 hours Mr Ahern and Mr Blair will continue to work on republicans.
It will be Mr Blair's even bigger challenge to persuade Mr Trimble that what appeared lost is still salvageable.