BY THE tokens hoisted in advance, there will be more mists than fruitfulness in the autumn of political talks which open at Stormont today.
Before and during the 1994 ceasefire, opinion polls demonstrated a significant cross community majority in Northern Ireland favoured the political leaders becoming involved in direct talks.
That indicated a core belief that talks were preferable to and could restrain armed hostilities, and also seemed to indicate some degree of hope, at least, that talking could develop prospects of a settlement.
As the resumed opening plenary session of the talks convenes at Castle Buildings, Stormont, there is no doubt that the totality of that earlier public assessment no longer remains intact.
Thus far, the so called multiparty talks have served to depress public optimism about the prospects of a settlement, and at this point there is even a foreboding that the carry on at Stormont - unless its format and conduct is radically revised - may actually contribute to a return to violence.
The political leaders - primarily those bf unionism who hold the key have shown no sense of urgency or enthusiasm to address core issues. The protracted procedural wrangling - which is by no means over - has perilously sapped resources of energy, resolve and optimism on all sides.
The loyalist ceasefire is clearly precarious. The intentions of the IRA are unknown but will not remain indistinct indefinitely. And we are plainly nowhere near achieving what the Mitchell Report described as the necessary reassurance that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiation is genuinely being offered" to address the legitimate concerns of all traditions and the need for new political arrangements with which all can identify".
Senator George Mitchell himself is said to be deeply disillusioned and uncertain about the extent and usefulness of his future commitment to the process. American and British political will to inject a positive dynamic seems to be diffused and distracted by domestic electoral considerations and the Irish Government is constrained by its restricted role in the three stranded process.
Meanwhile, unionist leaders, between them, have constructed what will prove to be in effect a triple lock on progress to real negotiations.
The first link in this triple lock will be applied today when the unionist parties attempt to squeeze the fringe loyalist parties, the PUP and UDP, over the loyalist paramilitary threat to Mr Billy Wright.
This will set in train a potentially protracted and exhausting wrangle over definition, interpretation and adjudication on observance of the Mitchell Principles of democracy and non violence.
If the ensuing argument is not to hold up the entire process indefinitely, Senator Mitchell must contrive to short circuit or sideline the dispute, possibly by delegating the preliminary decision to the two governments - an option which may be fiercely disputed by the unionists.
Whether or not this hare is disposed of, a second major barrier will arise in the form of the old bugbear - the decommissioning issue.
On the ground, the pragmatic and widely accepted reality is that the events of the summer have greatly diminished the chances of any practical step forward on this issue in the absence of some significant evidence of progress in the political negotiations.
This reality will not deter the unionists from using the issue to stall movement - even to the extent of refusing to finalise a detailed agenda for the opening plenary session until the issue is examined and reported on.
At this point, it may be possible this week to agree on the setting up of a working group or subcommittee on the decommissioning issue, but the likelihood is that the unionists will insist on waiting for its report before agreeing to move on to discuss any other subject.
The third element of the triple lock is the long term insurance policy devised by the UUP leader, Mr David Trimble, in his Irish Times interview on Saturday.
Coming from the representative of a tradition which has insisted upon the inviolability of the concept of democratic majority decision, his carefully worded hedge against the mandatory acceptance of a referendum outcome was significant, and potentially double edged.
Wide implications - not all of them negative - arise from his comment that: "... if you've got a situation where some of the major elements in society are strongly opposed to what you're doing, it doesn't matter even if you manage a narrow majority in a referendum."
On the positive side, it indicates an acknowledgment that there is an imperative for agreement between all parties and all traditions on all aspects of how society is to be governed - a position close to that enunciated by Mr Gerry Adams of Sinn Fe in and Mr John Hume of the SDLP.
Mr Trimble's genuineness in espousing this credo can only be measured against his conduct in the new phase of the talks and how resolute he shows himself to be to address the concerns of the minority tradition in the North.
However, his position on a narrow majority" in a democratic vote has the ominous ring of elastic flexibility. In the unlikely event that he could be pressed to the point of having to define what he would consider to be an acceptable or convincing electoral majority, he would probably feel obliged only to accept that the present majority/minority population breakdown is about the adequate scale to justify majority rule.
All of these diversions reinforce the case that the unionist bloc is content to talk indefinitely, provided the talks do not threaten to push them to the point of genuine engagement on the real issues that have fed the Northern conflict.
There will be days of grinding tedium and demoralising deadlock ahead at Stormont - with growing danger of more definitive eruptions outside - unless some radical rethinking and realignment of the process can be devised.
The summer's marching controversies showed the essential requirement for a mediation role, involving skills in the most creative techniques of conflict resolution.
There may be a case for honestly abandoning the immediate aspiration and terminology of negotiation in regard to the multiparty talks, and, without disbanding them, building in a mediation chamber to which all panties could resort before facing each other directly in tense head to head confrontations which have so far thrown up more barriers than genuine accords.