THIS is an important, possibly even crucial day for the Northern Ireland peace process. Voters in Britain go to the polls in local elections which will bring more bad news for John Major. Conservatives are expected to lose between 400 and 600 of the 1,200 council seats they are defending, but the party is bracing itself for an even worse defeat.
Just how badly these local Tories fare will have a dramatic impact on John Major's authority, and on his relationship with his bitterly riven and unhappy parliamentary party. Nobody believes there will be another challenge to Mr Major's leadership. The party is too divided. Any result which satisfied one side would leave the other more rebellious than it is now.
But there has been speculation that the prime minister might be seriously tempted to walk away from it all, may even have agreed to do so if the local elections prove to be as disastrous as some senior Tories fear. The denials by Michael Heseltine that this has even been discussed, the bravura protestations of loyalty, have not stopped the stories appearing, rather the reverse.
An article in this week's Economist, entitled "Will Major Walk?" describes the charms of a lazy English summer - the kiss of leather on willow, evenings at Glyndebourne with Norma and, most seductive of all, the serious satisfaction of seeing somebody else get all the blame for everything that goes wrong between now and the election.
If this happened, the effects on the peace process would be enormous. It has become fashionable to attack John Major for an excessively cautious approach to the peace initiative and, in particular, to blame him for the delays which led to the IRA calling off its ceasefire. If he were to be replaced now, I suspect we might come very quickly to revise that view. More than any other British prime minister in the past 25 years, John Major has made a personal commitment to achieving a settlement in Northern Ireland. It is difficult to see that anyone who succeeded him now would be prepared to take the necessary political risks, particularly given the present divisions in the Conservative Party.
The most likely scenario is that Mr Major will soldier on, weakened by sniping from the back benches and vulnerable to the increasingly aggressive chauvinism of those who oppose his policies on Europe. While many Conservative MPs are motivated primarily by fear of losing their seats at the next election, they have also been thrown into a state of panic by the appeal of Sir James Goldsmith and his Referendum Party.
EQUALLY, we must recognise that the popular mood in Britain, encouraged by xenophobic media, is hardening into a frightening and virulent nationalism. This will be very difficult to moderate even if Labour wins the next election. Mr Kurt Lammers, the Foreign Affairs spokesman in the Bundestag for the German Christian Democrats, has argued that the views expressed by the Euro sceptics represent the "inner, subjective reality of the consciousness of the British people".
Germany is at the receiving end of the most offensive expressions of this inner, subjective reality. MPs rail against "the Fourth Reich" and compare John Major's handling of European issues with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. Nor are these comments confined to politicians worried about re election. One historian, quoted in last Sunday's Observer, said this about Germany: "It's rather like a navvy who is perfectly civilised and charming most of the time, but who suddenly, with no warning, is liable to bash your baby's head against the wall."
There is no space, alas, to discuss what has brought about this crude renaissance in British nationalism - at least not on this occasion. I know many readers will probably say that it was ever thus, that the imperial arrogance of the neighbouring island was only muted by the loss of Empire after the second World War, and its subsequent political and economic decline. But muted it was, and deliberately so, as the political class tried to come to terms with these new and often unpalatable realities.
What is so depressing about the present mood - of Little Englander chauvinism is how much it - seems to be driven by what one must describe as intellectuals and by the quality press. The tabloid papers join in, reflecting a mood which is now obviously common among their readers. But that ugly xenophobia has been legitimised by academics who hold posts in distinguished universities and by commentators writing in newspapers like the Times and the Daily Telegraph.
What has all this got to do with peace, or the hopes for peace, in the North? A lot.
For a start, Ireland is shortly due to take over the European Union presidency at a time when Britain is likely to be at loggerheads with the rest of the EU. The Tanaiste will need all the political and diplomatic skills at his disposal to balance our obligations to our European partners, while at the same time trying to maintain the relationship with Britain needed to maintain momentum in the peace process.
THAT is almost an aside. Far more important, for the long term, is to observe how this mood of defiant British nationalism has already become intertwined, emotionally and politically, with attitudes to Northern Ireland, and to the maintenance of the Union.
It's not a coincidence that the newspapers which are most vehemently Euro sceptical are also those which are most opposed to any moves which might be unpalatable to the unionists, whether these be on law and order or the broader constitutional issues. Some commentators are fond of comparing John Major's grovelling capitulation to Brussels with his "appeasement" of the IRA.
The road to talks next month and, even more, the negotiations themselves, are likely to be much more difficult if this mood of sour, resentful nationalism strengthens in Britain. That is a reality with which the Government, and Irish nationalists North and South, will have to live. Ironically, it seems Sinn Fein has already accepted that the weakness of John Major's position, the difficulties besetting him on all sides, has created a situation where real political progress is going to be impossible to achieve. That may have to wait until a general election in Britain brings a stronger government.
The challenge for all parties on this side of the Irish Sea, but particularly for Irish nationalists, is to steady the situation in the North and prevent a slide back to violence. John Bruton, in a timely and determined speech, has tried to do just that by spelling out what has already been achieved and his determination to maintain the necessary momentum in the talks process. But it may not lie within his power, or that of John Major, to move as fast as either would wish. That does not mean the peace process is doomed, just that it is a long, slow and difficult business which demands heroic patience on all sides.
