It is often forgotten about this peace process that what distinguishes Sinn Fein from all the other participants is not so much the issue of armed struggle as the fact that Sinn Fein is a revolutionary party, the closest such organisation to the centre of political life in these islands.
And so, while everyone else talks about a final settlement, republicans will be discussing when they get together again at the weekend to finally decide on the Belfast Agreement, whether this amounts to an adequate first step to achieving their wider goals. Although this is implicit in every republican statement, it is often ignored in the interest of seeking either hope or pessimism from such statements. Whereas the political and media establishments scan each new utterance by republicans for signs of a retrenchment or change of heart, the real insights are to be gained by examining them for evidence that republicans are happy with their rate of progress.
For instance, there has been much lamentation in media and political circles about last week's IRA statement on the basis that, while it dubbed the Belfast Agreement a "significant development", it considered it to fall short of "presenting a solid basis for a lasting peace". There was nothing new or particularly depressing in this assessment, which was similar to the position articulated two weeks previously by Gerry Adams. The IRA statement must be taken in the context of the balance being considered by republicans between gains now and objectives postponed. If Sinn Fein votes to accept the agreement this weekend, it will be because it accepts that on balance, the leadership has achieved the best tactical movements possible at this time.
"A united Ireland was not attainable in this phase," Mr Martin McGuinness told the April ard fheis, "not because of unionist op- position but because of all the participants, only Sinn Fein was advocating and promoting that objective. To the extent that our political strength permitted us to promote all of our positions, we did so."
The reminder that Sinn Fein is the only party actively pressing for a united Ireland points to some of the core philosophical problems now facing the republican movement, as it emerges from one stage of the struggle and prepares for another.
The debate about Articles 2 and 3 is only the tip of this ideological iceberg. It is true that many within the movement have reservations about conceding the territorial definition of the Irish nation, but for many republicans the debate is somewhat peripheral. This is partly because of a sense that the 1937 Constitution was really no more than a fig leaf to cover the embarrassment of the southern state as a consequence of partition.
A Dublin-based activist referred to the complacency which Articles 2 and 3 have created in the Republic. "So long as the commitment which they incorporated was there on paper, they were an alternative to doing anything." Many Sinn Feiners are also aware that the underpinnings of southern nationalism - what is left of it - are far from sound, being based on bourgeois notions about reunification which are much too abstract even to be described as utopian.
Another analysis is that because many Northern republicans, understandably, have a sense of ownership of the concept of Irish unification - having fought a long war to further that process - they are not about to give up the chance of achieving closure of the first phase of the struggle on account of the sensitivities of a bunch of rhetorical revolutionaries down south.
The main reservation in the party is not to do with the removal of the definition of the national territory, but with what is described as the "unionist veto" to be inserted in Article 3. However, as one activist put it, what has to be assessed is whether the entire package represents a step forward or "one that could prevent further movement".
"It's a matter of interpretation", he expanded. "Those with the least problems with the changes are those who see the overall agreement as an advance. The objections to changing Articles 2 and 3 now are the same as they've been for years - it wasn't that Articles 2 and 3 represented something great in themselves, but that for them to be changed in the way that was then being proposed would have represented a step backwards.
"The argument now is that, in the context of the peace process and the overall package, that no longer applies, so most people now think it's a step forward".
Other reservations appear to hinge on the contradiction to be created by the prospect of Sinn Fein, while continuing to oppose in principle the notion of a Northern state, participating in some form of government as a result of signing up to the Belfast Agreement.
Some activists appear to have serious problems with this, while others say they have no difficulty provided it allows Sinn Fein the opportunity to develop politically and serve both its constituents and its broader political agenda.
The end result of such reservations may be that Sinn Fein as a whole may say maybe, rather than yes or no at the weekend.