The momentous developments that have crept up on us almost by stealth in Northern Ireland could reasonably have been expected to dominate discussion in here following the return of the Dail.
Not that Northern Ireland is without competition for that position. The tumbling euro, teachers' pay and the apparent inability to cope with the immigration issue are three such competing issues. These and other weighty matters are what might be expected to be preoccupying colleagues.
Not a word of it. The continuing Flood tribunal revelations are the constant source of fascination. The examination of two key figures in this drama - the former government press secretary in two Fianna Fail governments, Frank Dunlop, and the former assistant city and county manager, George Redmond - has transformed perceptions of this particular tribunal.
For a long time, the Flood tribunal seemed to be "wandering in the desert" and attracted its share of criticism, fair and unfair. Now, suddenly, it is centre-stage, thanks in the main to the dramatic U-turn by Frank Dunlop. It is still not clear whether the canny former county manager will be as forthcoming, given his pivotal position.
Indeed, the contrast between the jaunty, relaxed Redmond and the gaunt, worn figure of Dunlop could scarcely be more striking. But there are increasing signs that the tribunal is losing patience with obfuscation.
Of course, we still don't have names, but this place is a hive of rumour. Or rather, we do have one name, who was given a financial contribution and, after discussion with constituency officers, returned it.
It would be normal practice for any prudent politician to involve a couple of his leading lieutenants in decisions relating to the always fraught matter of campaign contributions. Pat Rabbitte seems to have done that, but the media hacks can scarcely contain their glee at his discomfiture.
Drapier had predicted a similar response in the House, at least from Fianna Fail colleagues who for years have been tortured by the same Rabbitte. But the opposite response has been the case and is probably noteworthy for a few reasons.
First, it indicates the extent to which the political world considers itself to be under siege. Second, colleagues are saying that if Rabbitte is having such difficulty in explaining why he gave back a campaign contribution, what fate awaits the politician who admits retaining such a contribution?
By now, nobody at any level has anything but an angry word for the corrupt ringleaders who colluded to subvert the planning process. But lumping into this same category politicians who were offered and accepted what they understood to be normal contributions at election time is causing deep resentment.
No doubt the distinction will emerge in the long term, but the long term can be too late for politicians. Contrary to some media speculation, it is likely that Pat Rabbitte's experience will discourage rather than encourage innocent politicians from making a statement. And, of course, there is no prospect of a statement from the corrupt core who were daily about their masters' business while honest councillors had to earn a living as well as be present in the chamber.
Bertie Ahern's response to the Labour Party's Bill, which would ban all corporate donations in favour of public funding of politics, is typical of the man's style. He has invited Ruairi Quinn and John Bruton for discussions on what the appropriate response is.
Although Dermot Ahern and others have responded to the crisis of confidence by indicating support for the Labour position, the Taoiseach himself seems to want to hang on to business contributions under some kind of capping arrangement.
A majority in Fine Gael probably favour the Taoiseach's stance, but in the light of Ruairi Quinn's determination to introduce the Bill in Labour's private members' time, Fine Gael is expected to come on side. This will force Bertie to do what he only does in extreme situations, that is, come down on one side or the other.
Meanwhile, John Gormley has taken to wearing a white suit, so the Greens are likely to support the Labour Bill. For the PDs, the decision may be painful as, in the days when Michael McDowell held policy sway, they came out against a ban on business contributions.
More recently, however, and probably resulting from her own experience in the many investigations under way, Mary Harney has indicated that she may now take a different view. This will add to the pressure on Bertie.
It is more difficult to interpret the political significance of the PD assertion that Fianna Fail must saw off any TD implicated in selling his or her vote. The fact that Seamus Brennan seems now to be assenting to this ultimatum may indicate that Fianna Fail has done a headcount and calculated that the damage can be kept to a minimum.
Meanwhile, the most devastating tribunal of them all is winding towards a close of the formal stage. I refer to the Lindsay tribunal and the harrowing human grief that has been presented to the nation.
These courageous men and women have a tale to tell that is so arresting that all else pales into insignificance. We should all await the report with trepidation.
The tribunals apart, the routine hypocrisies endemic in our culture continue to find public expression. Jackie Healy-Rae fears there may be "civil rumpus". Are the people going to rise up against the neglect and maltreatment of haemophiliacs? Or against the politicians and developers who combined to subvert the planning process? No, the people are in danger of revolting because of the dispersal of unfortunate poor people, many of whose faces are black.
It takes a form of peculiar black humour to want to put more pressure on a Minister for Justice already beleaguered and out of his depth on the immigration issue.