Another illusionary chapter of the political process has fallen by the wayside with the failure - again - to clear the hurdles that have beset us for so long. Decommissioning, demilitarisation, policing and institutional stability, are those Grand National fences we have not yet had the ability - some say courage - to vault.
Is there a single word to be said that has not been said in relation to these subjects? Apart from the odd yes, the word that would break the logjam, the answer to this question is clear - no. So, what is it we are supposed to be trying to achieve? Total disarmament by paramilitary groups? No chance. Tokenism? Maybe.
On the other hand, if one is seeking complete demilitarisation, the physical power of Britain removed from Northern Ireland, then there is no chance. Tokenism? Yes. Policing and the stability of the institutions are interconnected to the main issues already alluded to.
Clearly there is wisdom in having political stability. It is most certainly in the best interests of any society to ensure the stability of the delivery mechanisms which provide the requirements of the populace. However, in our case, the fragility of the institutions is a consequence of distrust. Little in the way of sanction exists for the republican movement.
And if there were effective sanctions, one would have to have governmental will to implement such constraints. No such will exists. Hence, the preparedness of David Trimble and colleagues to develop sanctions to create, for the community they represent, the belief that at least someone who is proagreement will stand up to the republican movement.
Much distrust exists on both sides. That is to be expected after our long pain. That circumstance is hardly alien since we've always known about each other, but never known each other. Each side feels the need to exact answers from the other or from the government to convince their own supporters that gain is now, and there's more just around the corner.
In this respect, the republicans have a substantial luxury. They, the Chuckies, according to their own hype, are the engines for all change. The fuel, of course, which makes the foot soldier happy is the lie that an all-Ireland Utopia is ever nearer.
The myth which Adams promotes is that the more he heaps emotional pain upon the unionists or the British government, the more his side of the divided society falls for the Paul Daniels trick. Given the state of unionism, it is not hard to convince a willing republican audience that they are doing well.
Smoke and mirrors will not achieve a united Ireland. Indeed, I firmly believe the tactics of the republican leadership are in the long term more likely to destabilise this island than unite it. Constant agitation by republicans, while they play the role of enlightened peace brokers and statesmen, is an indication of their arrogance. That arrogance will be their downfall.
Again, it is about believing one's own hype. We all want peace. Some fools want peace on their own terms. It is certain that if peace is to be achieved then we have bitter pills to swallow. That is the nature of compromise. However, more and more, it is becoming clear that the process, now in such jeopardy, is in such a state for the basest reasons.
The issue of policing and inquiries demanded by republicanism and nationalism indicates this quite clearly. In this debate, the SDLP have become an irrelevance other than to send a sad message to the unionist community that the Shinners are in the driving seat and Mallon et al are hidebound. With that in mind, the recent Mallon demands for finality and certainty on policing seems a joke.
Where is the finality and certainty for the unionists?
Mallon's demands should be measured by the vapour trail in the sky with the barely discernible message and arrow: "Prods - hope this way". The Provos, through the auspices of Sinn Fein, are attempting to justify their war. That tells me that the major part of their thought process is about them rather than the people they say they serve.
It is common for republican activists to describe themselves as former combatants in the war. Yet, citizens of this society who joined the police are not to be afforded the same luxury. The constant attack on police and government policy is not about achieving a police service we can all give allegiance to; it is about trying to make themselves and their past actions legitimate.
The early release of prisoners, the return of offenders with impunity, and the attempt to create a hierarchy of victims through inquiries identifies a rank hypocrisy.
Add to that the Provo penchant to offer oxygen to those opposed to the process on the unionist side. The latest IRA statement is a blunt refusal to offer confidence to the unionist community.
For our part, the Progressive Unionist Party quests for peace in the knowledge that some of our hands are not clean. We embarked upon the path of exploration to investigate the theories of managing this divided society. So far the outcome we seek, as do many others, has proved illusive. The search must go on.
However, the clear position of our party today is that this process for us is all but over. Until we are certain that the IRA war is over, we will take no further part. When one can't say the war is over, when one attempts to justify the heinous deeds of the past, when one wants to rake over the embers to castigate others in the same past conflict, then the reasonable assumption is that the war is not over. That is our position. We wish it were otherwise.
David Ervine is leader of the Progressive Unionist Party