The multi-party talks process transfers from Stormont to Lancaster House this morning, teetering on the edge of a massive credibility chasm. No amount of dancing on the heads of pins by Mo Mowlam or David Andrews will disguise the fact.
The events of recent weeks, and in particular of the past few days, have dismantled the fictions - dishonest arguably, but necessary certainly from the point of view of democratic governments - on which this process was built.
Even among some nationalists who publicly praised her initiative at the time, there is a palpable feeling that the Northern Ireland Secretary contributed to this with her decision to go into the Maze and talk directly to UFF/UDA prisoners under threat of the imminent collapse of its ceasefire.
Critics at the time, and there were admittedly few of them, argued that in doing so Dr Mowlam was peeling away the pretence that the government was still dealing only with the political representatives of paramilitary groups which had affirmed commitment to the Mitchell Principles of democracy and non-violence.
In any event, what remained of the pretence was dispersed last Thursday when the RUC Chief Constable said the UFF was involved in the latest round of sectarian assassinations directed at Catholics, and - although this appeared to draw less media attention - clearly interpreted last week's IRA statement as carrying a threatened return to full violence should the political process fail to yield the result it seeks.
The confirmation by the UFF (a UDA cover name) that it had indeed broken its ceasefire to permit "a measured military response" to the INLA's activities, and its declaration that the ceasefire was now resumed, added insult to the injury.
It therefore confirmed what many had long suspected - the much-vaunted Mitchell Principles had been raised as the price of entry to the talks but thereafter had been trampled. Even as the former Taoiseach, Mr John Bruton, called for an independent mechanism to monitor the observance of the Mitchell principles, one leading nationalist politician said privately, and in very colourful language, the principles were useless.
As the fiction was exploded, the reality of the continuing power play was laid bare, throwing the entire process, as Mr David Ervine of the PUP acknowledged last night, "into a serious moral dilemma".
Dr Mowlam told ITV yesterday she had spent most of the weekend wrestling with that dilemma. Her heart told her the UDP, which is close to the UDA, certainly should be excluded from the process, but her head was telling her the consequence would be a return to the dark old days.
This is doubtless true, and it is hard not to sympathise with Dr Mowlam, Mr Andrews and the main party leaders as they struggle for a way through. Even Mr David Trimble, one suspects, while arguing that the governments should never have got to this point, understands here is where we are at.
From the UUP's perspective the "pitch to the extremes", the bid for an all-inclusive process, was always a doubtful adventure. But having gone along with it and risked much in order to avoid being blamed for a failure he has always considered likely, Mr Trimble may yet be persuaded that there is no choice now but to see the enterprise to a conclusion. But this cannot be taken for granted and, as today's session drew closer, there were clear signs the SDLP's "moral dilemma" was growing.
Certainly all the key participants foresee the "domino effect" of the UDP's expulsion. Freed even of the need for pretence, loyalist attacks on Catholics would escalate. A well-targeted INLA assault on the UVF, to which the PUP is close, could see it follow the UDA, with resulting horrors which would finally bring the IRA back into full play.
There is, moreover, an enduring belief among ministers and leading mainstream politicians that at least at the political leadership level - loyalist and republican - there is a genuine desire to try to reach an accommodation and end the conflict. That belief drives Dr Mowlam's determination to resume political negotiation, as she put it yesterday, "with a vengeance."
And that is indeed the logic of the process to which the two governments have committed themselves. They can hardly imagine they will emerge with a deal mutually acceptable to the UFF and the IRA.
But the hope persists that by optimising support for an agreement commanding Ulster Unionist and SDLP support, underwritten by dual referendums North and South of the Border, the irreconcilables will find themselves further marginalised and obliged to confine any subsequent opposition to purely peaceful and political means.
But here is the biggest worry and the greatest danger. Facing hostile unionist questioning on ITV yesterday, Dr Mowlam appeared to give the impression that she could conceive of no alternative to the present process. But the interests of the great majority of the people in these islands demands that there must be - and that the British and Irish governments, if put to it, will provide it.
Yes, an inclusive process is preferable. Yes, if the proffered "transition" from terrorism to democratic activity is accepted, all parties should be included on the basis of fairness and parity. But if people in the end choose to exclude themselves, the entire democratic process cannot be held to ransom.
Building from the so-called "centre" out has failed in the past. As an alternative to a fully inclusive process, its shortcomings are obvious. But there may, in the final analysis, be no alternative. That was the message when, before the second IRA cessation, Dublin hammered home the point that nobody could enjoy a "twintrack" approach to the political process. That was Mr Blair's message, when he insisted the settlement train was leaving, with or without the paramilitaries.
The worry and the danger now are that so few people believe it. And that lack of belief presents perhaps the greatest single challenge to Dr Mowlam and Mr Andrews when they convene in Lancaster House this morning.