SINN FEIN called for clarification of the Anglo Irish communique before it would decide whether it could call on the IRA to reinstate its ceasefire. Yesterday the picture became somewhat clearer, perhaps even brighter.
Mr John Hume's encounter with the IRA in the company of Sinn Fein leader, Mr Gerry Adams, certainly raised expectations that the ceasefire may be restored. The IRA leadership was making no promises, however, even though its statement yesterday evening provided further hope.
The Ulster Unionist Party, while caustically sceptical, did at least say that, in the event of an IRA ceasefire, it could "engage in some form of proximity talks" with Sinn Fein on June 10th, the deadline for all-party negotiations.
The DUP, however, was having none of it. When the IRA arsenal was "dismantled" the Rev Ian Paisley and his colleagues might politically contend with Sinn Fein. But certainly not until then, according to Mr Ian Paisley jnr, ceasefire or no ceasefire.
Mr Paisley jnr was particularly hardline. He wanted to know why neither the RUC or the Garda had questioned Mr Hume and Mr Adams for talking to an illegal paramilitary organisation.
The Alliance Party, despite concern about the type of election that will be staged, is upbeat about the communique's proposals. The loyalist fringe parties which represent the UVF and UDA are also enthusiastic about the Bruton Major package.
Parties will be busily adopting strategies and stances in the coming days. Yesterday, among the key players, the first tentative signs of movement came from the SDLP, Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionist Party.
As the communique was being delivered by Mr Bruton and Mr Major, the SDLP leader and Mr Adams were meeting at least four representatives of the IRA leadership somewhere in the South. At the time of the discussions, all parties present were aware of the contents of the communique.
The meeting caught most people by surprise and raised hopes that the IRA may be open to persuasion. According to Mr Adams, however, a ceasefire was not going to happen immediately.
A lot of mulling over the communique's contents and the bona fides of other parties, notably the British government and the unionists, had to be done before that situation would become clearer, he suggested.
He and the SDLP leader described the meeting as detailed and frank.
Mr Hume said he was hopeful the communique and his encounter with the IRA - a group he had not met in over 10 years - would lead to a new ceasefire. It was important to note that he and Mr Adams were seeking the same objective, a resumption of the peace process.
Mr Hume also stressed the IRA acknowledgment that it required an "inclusive negotiated settlement". The two governments, in setting June 10th for all party talks without preconditions, met that condition. This "strengthened" his hope that the ceasefire would be reinstated.
The later IRA statement saying it was prepared to "face its responsibilities" would have cheered the SDLP leader even further.
However, what was causing particular concern to Sinn Fein and the IRA was the mistrust generated by the failure of the British government to move to all party talks over the 17 months before the Canary Wharf bomb.
Mr Hume felt that if the British government spoke directly to Sinn Fein in the multilateral consultations due to start on Monday, without an IRA ceasefire, there would be even greater hope of a new ceasefire.
He acknowledged, however, that such a prospect was extremely dim, a view subsequently confirmed by the North's political minister who said there would be no meetings without a ceasefire.
Mr Hume said he was still opposed to an election to a new assembly or forum, but indicated he would accept an electoral system designed to determine who should engage in all party negotiations. He was also bullish about the need for parallel referendums in the North and South, seeking an all Ireland repudiation of the use of violence for political ends.
Mr David Trimble, the Ulster Unionist Party leader, was against engaging directly with Sinn Fein, even in the event of an IRA ceasefire. His colleague, Mr Ken Maginnis, found yesterday's Hume Adams statement "ominous" because it noted the IRA's commitment to "republican objectives".
This indicated that the IRA was still committed to a united Ireland and what it could not achieve through political means it would ultimately try and achieve by violent methods, according to Mr Maginnis.
Mr Trimble, however, conceded that should the IRA restore its cessation of violence, the UUP would be prepared to discuss the first items on a talks agenda - the six Mitchell peace principles and decommissioning - although not necessarily in the same room, or even the same building.
Mr Trimble said that if such a stage were reached, the UUP "could participate in a "form, of proximity talks" involving Sinn Fein. Mr Trimble stressed the word "form", indicating that in such an eventuality he would want to maintain as much distance as possible from Sinn Fein.
He was holding to his proposal for an election by single transferable vote through proportional representation to a new 90 member forum.
The DUP still favours an electoral system whereby people would vote for parties.
Mr Ian Paisley jnr, on behalf of the DUP, maintained an entrenched party position. There would be no talks with Sinn Fein, whether in proximity for or otherwise, until the IRA had "surrendered" its weapons.
Even in the event of an IRA ceasefire acceptable to the British government, the DUP would not talk to Sinn Fein. And should the British government in such circumstances try and press ahead with the negotiations, as pledged in the communique, the DUP would not be at these talks.
Mr Paisley added that the real politik was that if the DUP was not, present, then the Ulster Unionists would not be present either.
