It cannot be presumed that Hugh Orde's statement just postpones the restoration of the North's devolved structures, writes Frank Millar, London itor
This may not be the end of the peace in Northern Ireland, but it could be the end of the political process as we have known it.
Nor should it be assumed that the PSNI Chief Constable's verdict of IRA guilt in the Northern Bank robbery merely postpones the quest to restore the North's devolved structures until sometime after the British general election.
Mr Ian Paisley jnr's response to Mr Hugh Orde's statement yesterday was simple yet seemingly far-reaching. "It's over for them," he declared of Sinn Féin, demanding that the political process should now move forward without the republicans.
This may not be Mr Paisley jnr's or his party's last word on the subject. And that indeed will be the fervent hope in the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) even as it digests Mr Martin McGuinness's suggestion that permanent secretary Sir Joe Pilling presides there over a nest of British "securocrats" intent on destroying the peace process and its agenda for change.
Senior Whitehall sources were scathing about what they considered Mr McGuinness's attempt to "demonise" Sir Joe, one describing the Sinn Féin attack as "wrong and pathetic".
Other informed sources were equally convinced that, even in this dark hour, the most senior mandarins in the NIO would be parsing and analysing every DUP pronouncement in search of evidence that the political project might be resumed once the general election is out of the way.
Few with inside knowledge of the NIO recognise Sinn Féin's depiction of it as a department of government peopled by pro-unionist crazies discomfited by the IRA ceasefires and intent on pursuing the old conflict by other means.
It is probably true that in the past year some elements in the NIO have shown themselves less enthusiastic than 10 Downing Street about the possibility of the "deal of all deals" between the Rev Ian Paisley and Mr Gerry Adams.
However, this was born of the view that Dr Paisley would never sign on the dotted line, and that a final settlement would probably have to await the succession of a younger and more pragmatic DUP leadership.
In this context, ever-hopeful mandarins may choose to take some comfort from the immediate reaction of the current DUP deputy leader, Mr Peter Robinson.
In one report Mr Robinson was quoted as claiming vindication for the DUP's conduct of the recent failed negotiation with the British and Irish governments and Sinn Féin.
The chief constable's judgment, he argued, strengthened the case for "a decontamination period" (in which to test the promised end of IRA activity) and actually "raised the bar higher" in terms of Sinn Féin's entry into any new power-sharing government.
Crucially for the peace process planners in London, Belfast and Dublin, this could be taken to mean that the essential agenda is unchanged; that the DUP remains in principle committed to an inclusive political settlement, and that the only real consequence from the robbery will be a longer timescale between the conclusion of an eventual political deal and its implementation.
This is the same "in the round" thinking which would have us believe that, if it was the Provisionals, the robbery was almost a good thing in itself because it was likely intended to boost the pension fund for soon-to-be-retired terrorists.
However, analysts would be well advised to take Mr Robinson's comments in the round. And they will find there, as in the pronouncements of Mr Jeffrey Donaldson, a reflection of the same determination that the challenge now for the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, is to say if he will allow the political process to advance without Sinn Féin.
In real terms, of course, Downing Street can counter that that is a question in the first instance for the SDLP. Might Mr Mark Durkan be prepared to break what remains of the "nationalist consensus" and agree a partnership administration which excludes Sinn Féin, at least pending the convincing conclusion of the IRA transition?
And is it conceivable that the much-weakened SDLP could do so without the explicit support of the Irish Government and the Catholic Church?
The conventional wisdom might still suggest that devolution without Sinn Féin would not be worth "a penny candle". However, it would be a brave commentator who would rely on any conventional wisdom about the state of unionist opinion now.
There were tensions evident within the DUP hierarchy during the Leeds Castle talks and in the months of negotiation thereafter.
Some DUP MPs appeared more enthusiastic than others about concluding a devolution deal ahead of the election and more willing to rely on Mr Blair's assessment of republican intentions.
However, there is collective relief now in that party that Dr Paisley held the line in his demand for a photographic record of decommissioning - and that the IRA refused it.
Having had a narrow escape, the Ulster Unionist calculation is that the DUP will not return to a government agenda which would have had it agree the modalities for the devolution of policing powers by the end of next month. Following Mr Orde's statement, moreover, the UUP leadership apparently divines no pro-agreement ground on which it might now take an alternative stand.
Thus a curious new unionist consensus may be taking shape - and it betokens protracted stalemate.