The most hopeful image from the St Patrick's Day celebrations was the handsome float of the Titanic which provided one of the highlights of the parade in Sligo. That may sound odd when the great shipyard which built the Titanic is under threat of closure. But the float, designed by Mark Ervine, son of the Progressive Unionist Party leader, was accompanied by a strong delegation from Sandy Row.
Garnett Busby of the Sandy Row Residents' Group made the point that this was not the first time they had been to Sligo. Last year 50 residents of Sandy Row crossed the Border to take part in the St Patrick's Day parade. Last Friday there were 200. Mr Busby told this newspaper: "People were knocking down doors to get going. The kids have been down in summer camps, and when they have a good time the parents throw their weight behind us."
Sandy Row is not normally seen as a place where people are knocking down doors to organise outings to this State. Perhaps this is unfair. But it is a sign that there may be a thaw in attitudes in unexpected sections of the unionist community. The decision by the Orange Order to accept an invitation to march in Dublin, for the first time since 1937, is another.
Last time such an event took place there were running battles in Dublin's city centre. We have yet to see how it works out this time around. Sinn Fein has already said that it will mount a protest against the visit, which it has compared to "inviting the Ku-Klux-Klan to march in Alabama". The Orange Order points out that it has already had meetings with the President and the Taoiseach and seems reasonably confident that ordinary Dubliners will accept the march in a spirit of goodwill.
There is always a temptation to read significance into events of this kind. There have been cultural and sporting exchanges across the Border through all but the worst of the Troubles. Still, it's hard to imagine that the Orange Order would have been able to come to Dublin through times of violence at Drumcree. At the very least, it points to a greater confidence in the durability of peace than you might expect from reading about the present political impasse.
It also raises the possibility that the broader unionist community may be more relaxed about decommissioning than the present turmoil within the UUP over David Trimble's comments in Washington suggests. The Northern Ireland Secretary is known to believe there is still a majority in the unionist community who see the Belfast Agreement as a reasonable political deal and want it to work.
This includes business people, the churches and professional groups who have found it much easier to talk to locally elected ministers. They do not look forward to having to deal once again with Westminster politicians who have been described to me as "ignorant, arrogant and patronising". There is a suspicion that the visitors are less inclined to work hard for Northern Ireland's interests because they are not accountable to local voters. Harland & Wolff is cited as a case where the British government failed to do all that it might have done to save the shipyard.
David Trimble is said to be "relaxed" about talk of a threat to his leadership at this Saturday's meeting of his party's governing council. Could it be that the UUP leader believes that there has been a shift in attitude in his own community? Most unionists are still deeply mistrustful of the republican movement on decommissioning and resentful of aspects of the agreement, such as the release of paramilitary prisoners. But they are fearful that peace could slip away and, for that reason at least, are willing to give the Belfast Agreement another chance.
In effect, this means moving the whole issue of decommissioning on to another track, while continuing to work the politics of the accord. The two governments are agreed that the IRA must be given more time to deal with decommissioning but, in exchange, must give a solid pledge that the weapons issue will be dealt with, that the days of violence are over for good.
For this to happen both sides need to be confident their opponents are genuinely committed to the agreement. In Washington, against all the odds, David Trimble was persuaded that he should be the one to shift the logjam, by demonstrating to nationalist and republicans that his party was willing to try again.
In agreeing to consider "a new sequencing which probably will not involve arms up front" the Ulster Unionist leader has, in effect, accepted the game plan devised by the two governments. He has also shown that he is prepared to take risks for the whole community in Northern Ireland, rather than just one section of it.
As Mr Trimble put it in Washington: "I've got to be able to persuade the party to do it." The first test of his resolve will come this weekend. The main threat to his authority comes not from any direct challenge to his leadership, but in the form of a motion linking the party's re-entry to the executive to retaining the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Mr Trimble's closest supporters have made it clear that they oppose any such move. Perhaps more importantly, so has the Chief Constable of the RUC. In an interview published in the Irish News yesterday, Sir Ronnie Flanagan warned anti-agreement unionists of the dangers of attempting to claim ownership of the RUC for any one party.
What David Trimble most needs is a response from the republican movement which will give the unionist community the reassurances to which it is entitled - that the violence is over for good. The Government of this State believes that the proposals made by the IRA to Gen. John de Chastelain just before the suspension of the executive could provide the basis for such a pledge. If that is the case, the offer should be put into the public arena as soon as possible.
The building of trust is a two-way process. David Trimble has done his best to demonstrate to nationalists that he is committed to making the agreement work. The republican movement needs to show an equal sensitivity to the concerns of unionists.
mholland@irish-times.ie