A DEPRESSING air of unreality attends the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations etc) Bill as it winds it way through the parliamentary processes at Westminster.
This is an important piece of legislation. One Labour frontbencher, Mr Jim Dowd, went so far as to describe it as without precedent in parliamentary history.
Certainly it should carry great potential significance for the peoples of these islands. The Bill provides for the elections on May 30th, from which will be drawn the delegates to all party negotiations starting on June 10th.
Between now and then, the two governments hope the IRA will reinstate the ceasefire. Thereafter, they proffer the path to a balanced constitutional settlement on the North. In design, at least, the people of Northern Ireland stand on the brink of another historic opportunity.
Yet the parliamentary launch of this process has conspicuously not been used by the political leaders to define or even hint at grand visions for the future.
The assorted unionists are furious at what they regard as British attempts to neuter the proposed elected forum. The Rev Ian Paisley believes that, whatever the government intends, the forum will be the "litmus test" for any agreement emerging from the negotiations.
The SDLP thinks the very existence of a forum militates against any significant agreement - or even serious negotiation - emerging.
The MPs - or at any rate those from the North and those with front bench responsibilities - were hard at work again last night and into the wee small hours of morning. Between them, the UUP, DUP, SDLP and a handful of interested Labour and Tory members tabled more than 140 amendments to the Bill. But it survives in the essential form intended by Sir Patrick Mayhew and his draftsmen.
The secretary of State spoke of the need for "presentational balance" on Monday as he acknowledged the conflicting suspicions of unionists and nationalists.
In practical terms, this meant the government - armed with the payroll vote, and the assurance of Labour support - would crush unionist attempts to elevate the proposed elected forum, and any token nationalist attempts to dispense with it altogether.
As an early deterrent, the DUP's attempt to rewrite the title of the Bill and define the election of the forum in its purpose was crushed by 217 votes to eight. A similar fate would have been visited upon Tory MP David Wilshire's attempts to rewrite the ground rules for the proposed negotiations. The Westminster consensus was asserting itself.
Various random counts found around just 18 MPs actively involved in the Commons chamber. But Sir Patrick had the votes lurking in the bars, tearooms and restaurants. His Bill will go to the House of Lords tomorrow. Any amendments will be considered by the Commons on Friday, and the measure will receive the royal assent, as planned, on Monday.
The North's parties are already in the thick of the necessary preparations. In barely a fortnight the election campaign will be under way. And after that?
Dr Paisley is insistent that the forum must meet before June 10th. The threat is that the DUP will otherwise boycott the talks. But the British have promised the elections will lead "directly" to the negotiating table.
Any concession to the DUP leader could have a profound impact on the SDLP's approach to the whole enterprise. At this writing, senior nationalists believe Sinn Fein will have nothing to do with the forum in any circumstances.
London may think to have the DUP participate a la carte. But, even if they surmount this hurdle what happens come June 10th when the Ulster Unionists (assuming the ceasefire is reinstated) define how they think Sinn Fein must "address" the issue of decommissioning weapons?
During the past two days Sir Patrick has avoided offering any fresh hostages on this issue. But during last Thursday's second reading debate he again quoted Mr Major's demand for "parallel" decommissioning alongside talks.
Under unionist pressure, Sir Patrick suggested the simple reinstatement of the 1994 ceasefire would not suffice. What was new, he said, was that the parties must at the beginning make clear "their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non violence" set out in the Mitchell report.
And, when asked who Sinn Fein had to satisfy on the decommissioning issue, the Secretary of State suggested all those with whom they wished to negotiate.
Such suggestions are greeted with dismay in Dublin. One senior source admits confusion and doubt. Is it "for the optics" or is it "for real"? And he points out the other difficult path Sir Patrick must now journey, as Westminster gives its blessing to the elective process.
Intensive discussions are expected to resume between British and Irish officials to establish precisely what happens on June 10th and thereafter. The Irish priority will be to establish that the negotiations offered are, indeed, for real.
In crude terms, that means establishing that Mr David Trimble cannot block the entire agenda until he has been satisfied on the decommissioning issue. Such an understanding is obviously crucial to ongoing Dublin attempts to persuade the IRA that they should restore the ceasefire.
But the republicans may not be easily persuaded. If their assessment is that the unionists are not prepared for serious dealing - and that the British government is now effectively powerless to act without them - their calculations may well be geared to the circumstances following the British general election.
Moreover, relations between Sinn Fein and the Government are at an extremely low ebb. What one source likens to the "constellation from hell" is very different from the line up on which the original `Irish peace strategy was founded.
The Taoiseach, Mr Bruton, will have his work cut out to persuade the republicans that the Irish general election is not an equally crucial date in evolving a stratagem for the longer term. And as Sir Patrick celebrates the passage of his Bill, Mr Bruton and Mr Major face the reality that the crucial decisions, on all sides, have still to be made.