MR John Major appears to have effectively relaunched his proposal for an elective process leading to full negotiations in Northern Ireland. But the qualification is far from pedantic for this is a government still in disarray.
Authoritative indications of the next steps expected in the resumed IRA campaign cannot mask the intelligence failure which preceded last Friday's bomb attack in London's former docklands. To the end, ministers here (as in Dublin) had insisted there was no evidence of an organised return to violence".
And Friday night's sense of shock was still palpable as MPs returned to the Commons yesterday to hear the Prime Minister's response to the end of the IRA ceasefire.
Of necessity, Mr Major had to deliver a substantive sounding performance at the despatch box. No matter how despairing in private, ministers knew they could not afford to sound defeated or at a loss.
In that respect, and in a number of others, Mr Major acquitted himself well. But whether the statement warranted quite the degree of enthusiasm immediately evidenced by some Irish sources will not be clear for some time yet.
The official Irish response - from the Tanaiste, Mr Spring - was a cautious welcome. At lunch time yesterday there was considerable anxiety in Dublin about the terms and manner of Mr Major's presentation. It was privately acknowledged by one source that Mr Major's election plan appeared the only game in town.
But the possibility that plan afforded - of speedy and direct passage into substantive negotiations - had been greatly damaged by the manner of its presentation in response to the recommendations of the International Body on decommissioning.
The charge was that Mr Major had gratuitously embraced a unionist proposal - neglecting the nationalist agenda and not bothering to define the all important context in which he saw elections leading directly to the conference table.
If presentation were all, then last night's discernible Irish relief is easy to understand.
The Prime Minister made none of the "mistakes" (from a nationalist perspective) which characterised his Commons performance on January 24th. The failure of communication which attended previous telephone conversations with the Taoiseach, Mr Bruton, had plainly been overcome in their two weekend calls.
Mr Major conspicuously refrained from repeating his demand that Sinn Fein condemn Friday's bomb attack. He favoured elections which would lead "straight, and straightaway, to negotiations."
But his mind was not closed to other ideas, least of all from the Irish Government. He wanted to see his round of talks with the political parties "intensified". And he most emphatically was "not in the business of slamming doors" on anyone.
But over and above all else, Mr Major did not want his election proposal to be misunderstood or misrepresented. He repeated: "Its purpose is to lead directly and speedily to negotiations between all parties committed to peaceful and democratic methods, aimed at reaching a comprehensive political settlement."
An elected body "would have to be broadly acceptable and would be strictly time limited. The proposed elections were "a door to full negotiations."
Mr Major did as much as he could on day one of the political reconstruction.
After the frost recent weeks, the Anglo Irish atmosphere already feels a good deal warmer. But the devil remains in the detail.
The next step seems clear enough. One man's "proximity talks" can be another's intensification of the twin track process. In whatever form of clearing house, British officials will be pressed to put flesh on Mr Major's outline proposal.
Setting the date for elections, and enacting the necessary legislation, will be the easy part. Defining the remit and timetable for the negotiations themselves will be more problematic. Dublin's demand has been for assurance that negotiations would commence without any further preconditions.
But Mr Major made it clear yesterday that "parallel decommissioning - as envisaged by the Mitchell report - would be expected to proceed alongside the talks. And Sinn Fein could be included "only, of course, if there is an unequivocal return to the ceasefire.
Some Irish sources say Dublin accepts the reality of the Mitchell requirement for parallel decommissioning. But if that is so, the same cannot be said for Sinn Fein and the IRA. Nor is there any basis for the seemingly widespread assumption that republicans could cheerfully sign up to Mr Mitchell's famous six principles.
Unless the British had in mind some form of prohibition (which they do not), Sinn Fe in could contest any elections, and take their seats in any elected body, while the IRA campaign continues.
But whatever Mr Major's assurance and intent, can anybody seriously believe the unionist parties would enter a democratic trade off with Sinn Fein in such circumstances? Moreover, republicans will have been alarmed by Mr John Hume's suggestion of a referendum, North and South, inviting the people to speak on the use of violence and the commencement of round table talks.
Sources close to the British government last night interpreted the SDLP leader's proposal as "a nod in the direction of an elective process. But if, of necessity, there is a new Anglo Irish convergence along that path, it is not at all clear that it will be sufficient to reinstate the ceasefire.