The Northern talks have had so many moments of ennui and frustration that it is possible to lose sight sometimes of the historic and ambitious nature of the project which has been undertaken.
If a settlement is agreed, it would mean equilibrium had been reached between two communities divided by age-old religious and ethnic allegiances. This would have been achieved against a background of sectarian violence and guerrilla war- fare; a role-model for other divided societies around the world would have been established; would-be peacemakers would flock to the North to find out how the square was circled.
There are days when all this seems an impossible dream.
The occasionally farcical scenes in London this week strengthened that impression, yet the two governments and the bulk of Northern Ireland's political leaders have committed themselves in varying degrees to this process. They have put in long hours around the table and risked their political careers and in several cases their lives in what sometimes seems a Quixotic crusade.
The talks participants will mount the treadmill again on Monday. After their brief stint in London and the magnificence of Lancaster House, it's back to the dreary, soulless surroundings of Castle Buildings to deal with the nitty-gritty of Strand One, the internal governance of Northern Ireland.
The parties are due to discuss a paper from the British government on issues such as the composition and powers of a Northern Ireland assembly and how that body would be elected. Although Sinn Fein has voiced strong objections to an assembly, Strand One does not appear to have the same potential for drama and division as Strand Two, the North- South relationship.
Strand One essentially involves the political parties taking on a role similar to that of the Northern Ireland Office. A paper circulated yesterday set out the functions of the NIO and the constraints under which it operates.
There is a division between the two mainstream parties on the powers a Northern assembly should have. The Ulster Unionists want minimal powers for a non-legislative assembly: in that sense at least, the party does not want a return to Stormont. The SDLP wants substantial authority and functions to be devolved.
This is where Strand One be- comes intertwined with Strand Two. The two governments have proposed that the North- South ministerial council would be accountable to the new parliament or assembly in Belfast and the existing one in Dublin. If the council is to have real power, the Northern assembly must be a strong body with legislative functions.
Here we come to a clear philosophical dividing line between the two main nationalist par- ties. Sinn Fein takes the view that any North-South body subject to a Northern assembly will be powerless, kept on a choking leash by the unionist majority. Unionist sources take the same view.
The council or its equivalent will be subject to the assembly and therefore to the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland which will rein in any at- tempt to utilise the North- South body for political ends.
That is why unionists profess themselves relaxed about the document on North-South structures released by the two governments this week. They say that, although the 1995 Framework Document was mentioned, this was only to keep Sinn Fein quiet: the substance was in the January 12th Propositions on Heads of Agreement paper which, they insist, placed the North-South relationship firmly under the control of the majority community.
For their part, mainstream nationalists and Dublin political sources were delighted at the affirmation of support for the 1995 Framework Document. Dublin argued vigorously for the formula in the Strand Two paper stating that the two governments are "firmly" committed to the Framework.
According to SDLP sources, last Tuesday's Strand Two pa per is a significant step in sketching the outlines of a possible settlement. Far from seeing the reference to the framework as a sop, they argue that the centrality of the 1995 proposals has been reasserted. "It's a major achievement and it has been rejected by nobody."
Unionists say Tuesday's structures document was simply irrelevant and did not therefore provide a reason for walking out of the talks. David Trimble remains in the process and senior colleagues of his are confident his approach will get support at the party's a.g.m. on March 21st. In line with party rules, the leader's name must be submitted for re-election.
Few doubt Mr Trimble will keep his job, but there are indications an alternative candidate might be put forward, perhaps a "stalking horse" for one of the MPs opposed to the talks.
In that context, the two governments face a difficult problem. Dublin, for example, must be seen to promote the nationalist cause but if it does so too effectively then it will jeopardise Mr Trimble's position.
London is cast in the role of defender of the union and of unionists, but it must also watch its step lest it drive the IRA back to war. Squaring circles was never going to be easy.