If you met with Napper Tandy and, after the statutory handshake, he insisted on popping the traditional question: "How is dear old Ireland and how does she stand?" what would you tell him? The answer would require careful thought and, to buy time, you might well have to preface your remarks with: "I'm glad you asked me that question, Mr Tandy." Because the truth is that there are currently more questions than answers in the peace process and particularly in the Stormont talks.
Are the unionists serious or are they just making a tactical entry with a view to a future tactical withdrawal? Is the republican movement serious or is it simply playing the ballot-box card prior to taking up the Armalite again?
One of the better minds in the unionist camp said recently: "The IRA has called a tactical ceasefire, so we should engage in tactical talks." Unionist opinion is still in a sensitive state. That was the reason why so many hoops had to be jumped through and so many adjustments and contortions made so that the UUP could stay in the process and agree to let it move forward.
There were face-saving concessions on decommissioning. Somehow the notion developed that Gen John de Chastelain was closer to unionism than nationalism in his outlook. There is no evidence of this on the public record but the idea "got legs" and it had the beneficial effect that when the general was appointed to chair the commission to oversee a handover of weapons, this was seen as a concession to unionists.
Although he is unlikely to be over-burdened at this stage by having to check in truckloads of Semtex or caches of rifles abandoned outside the gates of Stormont, it has been decided to give the general some help with the job of chairing Strand Two of the talks.
These are the all-important discussions on North-South relations. Talks chairman Mr George Mitchell and the former Finnish prime minister, Mr Harri Holkeri, will now co-chair Strand Two with the general. In the iconography of the talks, this is seen as a gain for nationalists.
The Irish Times has seen the confidential text of the procedural motion. The main area of controversy was the section setting out general principles on decommissioning and consent.
There is comforting language for unionists in the declaration that "resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation". A unionist can insist this means that a handover of arms at an early stage is de rigueur, whereas a nationalist can claim that "resolution of the issue" does not necessarily imply immediate, or even early, disarmament.
This formula is typical of the mind-set which underlies the whole process in that it allows both unionists and nationalists to claim victory. It is what management gurus call a "win-win situation".
It is understood the loyalists, particularly the Ulster Democratic Party, fought hard for the procedural motion to contain an undertaking that consent would be a "guiding principle" in the negotiations. They were on firm ground in that Mr Tony Blair and Mr Ahern had used this form of words in their joint letter of September 15th.
But the SDLP, by all accounts, held out against inserting this clause. SDLP sources said they were concerned to ensure that consent did not become another political football like decommissioning.
Another view is that the party may have been more concerned with asserting itself and "putting manners on the unionists" - who had cancelled a proposed meeting earlier in the week. A personal letter of reassurance on consent from Mr Blair to Mr Gary McMichael, of the UDP, also played a crucial role.
So instead of inserting the formula of consent as a guiding principle, the motion expressed support for the views of the two government leaders on the issue as expressed in their September 15th joint statement, a copy of which was appended. A tortuous way around the difficulty, perhaps, but compromises are rarely elegant or even tidy.
The business committee of the talks is due to meet on Monday. This important body will work out the agenda for the substantive negotiations. It will bring unionists and republicans into the same room. The main Sinn Fein representative is likely to be Mr Martin McGuinness, who seems to have a penchant for shaking the hand of every unionist he meets.
Two other bodies where unionists will have to encounter republicans face-to-face are the liaison sub-committees on decommissioning and on confidence-building measures. The good news for reticent unionists, however, is that the procedural motion only envisages plenary sessions every two months.
The substantive negotiations proper are now expected to begin on Monday, October 6th, perhaps with a joint visit by the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister. There is strong speculation that Mr Blair will use this opportunity to hold his first face-to-face meeting with Mr Gerry Adams, inside Castle Buildings where the TV cameras won't see them.
It is now safe to say that Dr Mo Mowlam has restored her reputation with nationalists, which dropped so disastrously after Garvaghy Road. She is understood to have expressed her impatience in characteristically pungent terms when the unionists failed to come to the table after the September 15th joint statement from the two government leaders.
That letter, which came out at 7 a.m., was apparently issued specifically to bring in the unionists. They didn't come to the table until this week, but better late than never.
Sinn Fein is clearly finding the present British administration more congenial than that of the Tories. One senior member said it was "like day and night", although there is a residual feeling that Labour's agenda may amount to nothing more than modernising the Union. Continuing in that benign vein, the senior Sinn Fein person said the vote on the procedural motion was "a good night's work by everybody, including Trimble".
Disturbingly, both a senior loyalist and a top Sinn Fein member have alluded recently in private briefings to the danger of a highprofile assassination at this sensitive stage in the process. The Sinn Fein man made no bones about his belief that elements in British intelligence might be planning such a move, whereas the senior loyalist simply referred to "extraneous factors".
There are dark rumblings about a fifth column on the loyalist and republican sides but this may be just a case of political leaders smearing their opponents as they move into the political mainstream. Let's hope so anyway.