THE British government last night denied it was involved in any form of "negotiation" with Sinn Fein or the IRA. Mr John Hume, the SDLP leader, baulked at this characterisation of his ongoing discussions with the Sinn Fein president, Mr Gerry Adams and his accounts of them to London and Dublin.
Interestingly, perhaps, Mr Adams declined to deny yesterday's Sunday Tribune report that the SDLP leader has been acting as "intermediary" between Sinn Fein and the British government drafting statements of terms for a second ceasefire which might commend themselves equally to Mr John Major and the Army Council of the IRA.
Establishing the truth about the Northern Ireland "peace process" has never been easy. The desire for peace inevitably leads to the manufacturing of some "good news".
Likewise, the conflict between rhetoric and activities on the ground leads to wildly contradictory stories about IRA intentions: one week a convention is to be called to end the war; the next to plan its escalation.
The SDLP leader has made no secret of his continuing dialogue with Mr Adams with the aim of reinstating the IRA cessation, or of his belief that this can be achieved. The Ulster Unionist leader, Mr David Trimble, is equally insistent that attempts to politicise Sinn Vein have failed and that the Stormont talks must proceed without the party.
But in an atmosphere of rumour, speculation, claim and counter claim, one simple truth stands out: that Mr Major finds himself at the centre of a titanic struggle between Mr Hume and Mr Trimble. Both leaders have been engaged in intensive lobbying campaigns with the prime minister over the past number of weeks both seeking and intending wholly opposing outcomes.
Characteristically, Mr Hume was last night playing his cards close to his chest. But, like the British government, he distanted himself from one rumoured compromise" over the terms for Sinn Fein's entry to talks - which had circulated over the weekend.
This plan, said to have been canvassed in London and Dublin, suggested Sinn Fein's entry to a plenary session of the Stormont talks following a second ceasefire but with the party then required to undergo a three month decontamination" period before joining the "substantive" three stranded negotiations. The suggestion appeared to be that in that time punishment beatings would be ended and the IRA would match Sinn Fein's acceptance of the Mitchell principles of non violence with "confidence building measures on the ground.
Mr Hume told The Irish Times last night that he knew nothing of such a proposal and specifically said that the concept of a three month interregnum had not been put to him in discussions by the British government. To the contrary, the SDLP leader said he was proceeding on the basis of the declared positions of both governments of last February that Sinn Fein participation would follow "an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire".
In an interview nine days ago Mr Hume said he had agreed with Mr Adams that the multi party talks should be time limited and that Sinn Fein should be given entry immediately the IRA called another ceasefire. Sinn Fein sources last night confirmed that this remains their bottom line position. One source close to Mr Adams said that the party should be admitted and treated on the same basis as all other participants. He added that the concept of a three month delay smacked of "additional preconditions" and would serve as a block on all the parties.
Confusion continues about the ownership of this purported "compromise". However, the reaction from Mr Hume and Sinn Fein appeared to bear out yesterday's Sunday Tribune report that the proposed three month "waiting period" was a British stipulation, assuming the IRA would not define a second ceasefire as "permanent".
Late last night, further details were emerging, suggesting a variant of the concept which might conceivably be acceptable to Dublin and the SDLP. This suggests an opening plenary session to be followed not by any form of interregnum, but by a protracted period of intensive bilateral talks before the beginning of the substantive all party negotiations.
Earlier yesterday, a spokesperson for the Northern Ireland Office said: If a ceasefire were declared we have made clear we would need to look very carefully at what was being said and what was happening on the ground. It would obviously take time to establish that any ceasefire was unequivocal. As we have said many times, after the murderous attacks we have seen there can be no question of the IRA declaring a ceasefire one day and Sinn Fein joining the talks the next."
The Ulster Unionist Party's security spokesman, Mr Ken Maginnis, said that he would be opposed to the definition of any time limited period. But he added: "If we found ourselves in a situation where the government introduced them (Sinn Fein) to the plenary that would immediately reopen the equivalent of Washington 3, which is essentially agreement on a first tranche of weapons up front and a schedule for decommissioning thereafter."
Commenting on yesterday's reports, Mr Maginnis said he understood the British government's position was that there was no alternative to the word "permanent".
His party leader, Mr Trimble, told The Irish Times that a built in delay for Sinn Fein would not meet the prior need to define "what a ceasefire is". He asserted: "There's no point in Dublin twisting around on this. The reality is that Sinn Fein were given oodles of chances and didn't take them. And that's it."
Mr Trimble refused to comment on his undisclosed meeting in London last Thursday with Mr Major. But with six months to go to a general election, Mr Major facing a number of knife edged Commons votes and the authorities bracing themselves for bombings and possible assassinations - the Ulster Unionists appear confident that their stated position holds good for the British government as well, at least this side of the election. If Mr Major is to please Mr Hume, he must do it by way of a devastating blow to the Ulster Unionist leader.