"Mischievous distraction ", according to Mr Ken Maginnis MP; "all right thinking people" will reject it, the Rev Ian Paisley MP trumpets; it is "an effort by the Dublin government to avoid democracy taking root in Northern Ireland at all costs", we are sententiously told by Mr William Ross MP. By the sound of it, Mr Spring's modest proposal for a Multilateral Proximity Meeting of the political parties in the North to break the current deadlock is the worst thing that has happened since the IRA called its ceasefire.
The irony is that the very fury of the instantaneous response is the best possible proof that something like the Spring proposal is urgently needed. The postures of the political parties - on all sides - to the ideas of their opponents for the framework in which negotiations can begin, are a terrible indictment of sound bite politics at its worst. If it moves shoot it down; be seen by your supporters to be out there valiantly cutting the enemy to size in the name of tradition. It is not only the unionists that are doing it: the instant rejection by nationalist and republican leaders of Mr Trimble's suggestion of an elected body last autumn, without any pretence of examining it or teasing out its implications, came from an identical reflex. Don't give it a chance to run; look at the detail later. And the arguments, when they came, raised practical points which, in a more rational atmosphere, could be used to move things forward.
This, of course, is death to the process of dialogue, though it is very much in harmony with politics as it has always (or nearly always) been in the North. "Principle" is an elastic term, extensible to cover every possible future eventuality. It was heard again last night, as the unionist machine got to work on Mr Spring's proposition. Naturally: after all, the idea that a government in Dublin should propose anything that might take place within the four walls of Stormont clearly infringes on that nebulous thing, sovereignty. Or maybe.
No doubt the British government has more substantial reasons than those put forward by Messrs Maginness, Paisley and Ross, though it is not yet obvious except in the context of defence of its support for the proposal of an elected body - what these may be. It is absurd for those who will eventually have to join talks to which they are already committed in principle, to show so much more concern for form than for matters of substance. What, it is relevant to ask, are they really afraid of since Mr Spring last night underlined that the scope of his idea is strictly limited to matters of procedure? If, having got to the table, they continue to display a similar touchiness, nothing good is likely to emerge.
But if and when they reach the table with a solid agenda, they will, presumably, do so without airing every tortuous move of negotiation in public. (That was the case during the Brooke talks six years ago.) This is where Mr Spring's proposal finds its main justification: by using the proximity technique initiated at Dayton, Ohio, to break through the circle of emotions that blocked agreement in Bosnia, real compromise can be envisaged of a give and take kind that is impossible in the glare of the spotlight. And real compromise is necessary in a situation where what your opponent proposes is precisely what you don't want. . .
It was, perhaps, to be expected that unionists would seize on the apparent analogy between the North and former Yugoslavia. Mr Ross predictably referred to the massive slaughter in Bosnia and the "very small - murderous group" responsible for 25 years of killings in the North. But that is not the point. What is at issue is getting talks under way, and removing the road blocks that have prevented them for nearly 18 months. No magic formula is involved in Mr Spring's suggestion, but it has the merit of pragmatism. If tried, it just might succeed in producing a breakthrough.