From the perspective of both governments in Dublin and London, the decision of the Ulster Democratic Party (UDP) to walk out of the multi-party talks in London yesterday probably represents the best possible enouement to resolution of the moral dilemma they have faced in recent days. It is already clear that the question of the UDP's possible re-entry to the talks will be be considered - in the light of events on the streets - after what the Northern Secretary, Dr Mowlam, called "a period of weeks". In the interim, Mr Gary McMichael of the UDP is adamant that his party is not walking away from the talks process and remains committed to it.
In all the circumstances, this is a reasonably encouraging resolution to what Dr Mowlam called a "moral dilemma" which faced both governments in the past week. Expulsion of the UDP - the political wing of the UDA which is believed to have killed several Catholics in recent weeks - was clearly warranted if the Mitchell Principles of democracy and non-violence, and the entire talks process itself, were to retain credibility. But this had to be weighed against what Dr Mowlam herself called the "competing morality" of trying to hold the talks together and ensuring that further lives are not lost.
It was clear that while both governments continued to wrestle with this dilemma yesterday, opposition to the UDP's continued presence was hardening among the mainstream parties. In truth, the case against the UDP was overwhelming. The deeply-held suspicion among nationalists of UDA involvement in the recent wave of sectarian killings was dramatically confirmed by the RUC Chief Constable, Mr Ronnie Flanagan, in his statement late last week. The subsequent confirmation by the UFF (a UDA cover name) that it had broken its ceasefire and sanctioned what it termed a "measured military response" consolidated the case against continued UDP involvement in the talks process.
In practice, the UDP now faces a decontamination period, where its adherence to the Mitchell Principles will be carefully monitored. It is to be hoped that the party is deemed fit to return to the talks table after an appropriate period of time; in the short time frame before the scheduled deadline for an agreement in May, the UDP has an important contribution to make.
For all that, it would be a mistake for both governments to be in thrall to one party whose views tend to reflect those of loyalist paramilitaries. The participants to the talks must press ahead with the agenda. There is much work to be done; in the first instance there is a need to put some flesh on the proposed North-South ministerial council. Other aspects of the heads of agreement between both governments will also need to be teased out and analysed in coming weeks.
The withdrawal of the UDP is a setback but it is in no sense the end of the road or a fatal blow to the talks process. Rather, it should serve to strengthen the resolve of both governments as they work towards an agreed settlement.