It is now highly likely that some sort of electoral exercise will form a major element of whatever is to be put in place in an endeavour to rescue the peace process, although there is still wide divergence as to what form it may take. Mr David Trimble still adheres to his proposal for a traditional style election to an assembly which he has dubbed a "peace convention". Mr John Hume and the SDLP remain implacably opposed to any such departure, arguing that it would feed the flames of extremism and they cite the Middle East and South African peace processes in support.
The stance of the Government in Dublin remains fluid. The Tanaiste, Mr Spring, who seemed to share the SDLP position before the Canary Wharf attack, apparently moderated that view while in Washington. The Taoiseach, by contrast, likened it to "pouring petrol on the flames" over the weekend. But now it appears that both of them view an election as the most likely way of getting to all party talks. There is an inescapable irony in the realisation that the IRA's outrage is effectively levering legitimate nationalism to an acceptance of at least a version of the agenda set out by the unionists and Mr Major.
Friday's murderous attack and its aftermath have had the effect not only of starkly showing the gap which had been allowed to develop between the two governments but also of revealing some divergences among the coalition partners. At both levels, moves are now being made swiftly to remedy that. It is an open secret too, that relations among some key officials on both sides had also become seriously strained. Those relationships must be restored. Personalising arguments and targeting individual officials must have no place in the delicate and sensitive relationships which have to be built up in the common enterprise of securing peace.
Many observers whose primary sympathies would not instinctively lie with the unionists or the Tories have argued ab initio that the election route, under certain safeguards and with clearly defined and agreed objectives, was not necessarily the wrong one. But if it is now to be identified as the most probable way forward, how are its modalities to be determined? How is voting to be conducted? What sort of assembly will emerge? How will its proceedings be determined? Above all else, how can it be guaranteed to lead swiftly into all party negotiations for a permanent and comprehensive settlement?
According to Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Major is to produce a Green Paper on the proposed elections. That, in itself, could be fatally divisive and the British Labour shadow on the North, Dr Marjorie Mowlam, was quick to advert to that possibility, albeit in muted terms. What is required, she declared, is a joint British Irish approach. All of which leads back to Mr Spring's proposal of "proximity talks" in which all parties would come together to define the shape, purpose and practicalities of an electoral process and the transition to all party talks. It seems axiomatic that any election process can only achieve its aims if its participants are agreed on these matters. And they can only reach agreement through discussion. .
Identifying a possible way forward is the first step and a relatively easy one in enabling the elected representatives on all sides to begin a process of reconstruction after Friday's bombing. The potential for allowing the fragile vessel, thus constructed, to fall and shatter once more is enormous. But the first steps have been fairly sure footed, including the decision to suspend ministerial contact with Sinn Fein while keeping open the channels of communication at official level. The Government can also be thankful for the responsible and constructive stance struck by Fianna Fail. As the party which was in office when the cease fires came into operation there must be a temptation to fault the Government now in office for its stewardship. That it has not done so, at this time of crisis, is to Fianna Fail's credit and that of its leader, Mr Bertie Ahern.