MR John Major will meet the SDLP leader at Westminster this afternoon for what promises to be a very frosty encounter.
Mr John Hume was hardly pleased by the Prime Minister's put down on the Commons floor last Wednesday afternoon, or by the widespread impression that Mr Major's rebuke was as well prepared as it was skilfully executed.
More fundamentally still, nationalist Ireland considers even more gratuitous Mr Major's embrace of unionist proposals for elections as the route to all party talks in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach, Mr Bruton, agreed with Mr Major last November that this was an issue to be discussed in the political track of the twin track strategy.
But Mr David Trimble, the Ulster Unionist leader, conspicuously declined to participate that process on the grounds that he would not discuss "the internal affairs of Northern Ireland" with the Government. As one Irish source put it yesterday: "Last week's events provide a simple focus. The Prime Minister rewarded those who stayed out of negotiations. That says it all really."
Much more, of course, will now need to be said. For the reality, acknowledged in Dublin, is that Mr Major successfully etched the issue of elections or "an elective process" on to the agenda.
Whether that agenda is leading anywhere is cast in serious doubt given the scale of nationalist antipathy, and the terms in which Mr Major and the unionists have so far defined it.
Mr Hume has been careful not to rule out SDLP participation in such elections. The Prime Minister, after all, has yet to detail his plan. But he will not mollify the SDLP leader with the repeated assurance that he is not proposing "return to Stormont".
Nationalists know he couldn't, even if he wished. But they divine a unionist purpose to "internalise" the search for a solution - with the proposed assembly as the intended means to assert the primacy of the internal dimension, to detach the crucial North/South strand of the process and, above all, to remove the controlling influence of the two governments over it.
The pan nationalist view is that the case for an election, as put by Mr Trimble, is simply not made. For all the talk of mandates to a democratic process, Sinn Fein would not demonstrably emerge a different creature on the other side of an election. Moreover, if Mr Trimble envisages no more (at this stage) than "a dialogue" that can be accommodated within a talks framework without the diversion of an electoral battle which would confirm the power of the North's sectarian blocs. And if, as is likely, decommissioning remains top of the unionist agenda, the SDLP and the Government believe the findings of the International Body require urgent exploration in the twin track process.
What is accepted by key Irish players is that Mr Trimble himself may need a mandate (all previous unionist manifestos having pledged to maintain Sinn Fein's isolation) and that within the context of a process which also ties in the DUP.
But, as one Irish source put it yesterday, "the onus of proof" is on the UUP leader: "The question is whether it is an enabling smokescreen for the unionists to do serious business. If the answer is yes, then maybe it comes into
Mr Major is arguably not helped by Mr Trimble's refusal, thus far, to discuss the issue directly with Dublin. There is speculation that a social event later this week might provide him with the opportunity for an informal chat with the Tanaiste, Mr Spring. But relations between the two are poor, following Mr Trimble's impossible attempt to exclude the Tanaiste from proposed discussions with Mr Bruton. And even as a formal invitation wings its way to Westminster inviting Mr Trimble to meet the three coalition partners, the indications are that he will decline.
To some extent, Mr Trimble may be hoping Mr Major will perform the hard sell for him, although it is far from clear that the two men are, in fact, working to a wholly agreed agenda. Moreover, Mr Major's assurances may not suffice. Nationalists have now raised a serious question mark over the Prime Minister's motivation, in addition to his capacity.
They wonder whether, given Mr Major's failure to deliver Mr Trimble without an election, he can do much without his agreement thereafter. And as one of their number put it yesterday, nationalists see "a massive contradiction between the assurance that this isn't the same old arrogance, and then the same arrogant refusal to talk".
Past experience might tell Mr Trimble he cannot shelter too long behind the protective cloak of the British government. The reality of nationalist opinion might also tell him he will have no choice, in the end, but to act as persuader in his own case.