Analysis: What keeps DUP supporters awake at night, wondered SDLP Assembly member Seán Farren outside Leeds Castle. "Is it IRA arms and activity or ministerial accountability?"
This was a rhetorical question because, very obviously, what upsets the slumber of the DUP faithful is the IRA. But Dr Farren's pithy comment did capture the slightly bizarre nature of these three recent days at Leeds Castle in Kent.
For the first time, at least as far as the Taoiseach and British prime minister were concerned, there was a firm commitment from the IRA to retire from active duty and set up, perhaps, the republican equivalent of the British Legion - an old volunteers' association, so to speak. Why not? But there were 11th hour hurdles: not about the IRA but the institutional requirements of the DUP.
Very odd for a comprehensive deal that would allow local politicians govern Northern Ireland to be put on ice over the issue of accountability, jarred with what was the obvious story of the negotiations: the IRA's willingness to "divvy up" on arms and activity.
Caveats must be entered here. Yes, we know that IRA promises don't always measure up to expectations, but nonetheless the view around Leeds Castle was that the IRA, in the context of a "holistic" deal, would deliver persuasively. And if republicans didn't, the DUP could always walk away. Where was the danger for Paisley and his colleagues? And what an accomplishment for the DUP: irony of ironies, P O'Neill doing for Ian Paisley what he wouldn't do for the pro-Belfast Agreement David Trimble.
It all seems rather incredible that that final issue couldn't have been finalised.
There were lots of compromises floating but the DUP - for the first time engaging in such hothouse negotiations - weren't for budging. And that creates dangers, because what can be on offer on a Saturday could start unravelling by Monday.
The problem of having no deal, but being within a cat's whisker of one, is what the governments and the parties will address at Stormont tomorrow.
The DUP is hung up on two issues - electing the First and Deputy First Minister on the one slate, or as the one office, and ministerial accountability. The First and Deputy First Minister issue is simple and presentational. Ian Paisley or Peter Robinson - whichever takes the First Minister post - don't want to be seen being elected together with Martin McGuinness.
The Alliance leader David Ford came up with what seemed a potential compromise: rather than elect the First and Deputy First Minister together, why not amend the rules by maintaining the Office of First and Deputy First Minister but electing the entire executive, including First Minister and Deputy, in one fell swoop. That would ensure the cross-community essence of the election without putting Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley or Peter Robinson too close together.
It's a proposal that is consistent with the Belfast Agreement and might work. But accountability is truly problematic.
What Sinn Féin and the SDLP fear, and won't tolerate, is the DUP, because of their superior numbers having the power to veto what nationalist and republican ministers might decide. It would be a return to crude unionist majoritarianism, they argue.
It would be a monumental failure of political will if that issue can't be finessed. It shouldn't be a deal-breaker.
Much depends on resolving this issue. Without an Assembly there is no Northern executive to transfer responsibility for policing to. And without that devolution of power Sinn Féin won't endorse the PSNI. So, while accountability may appear a relatively minor matter, the stakes are huge.
If you are looking for the positive refer to the closing comments of Ian Paisley at the end of Leeds Castle: "I believe that a golden opportunity has been available to realise a stable and entirely peaceful future, and I told the Prime Minister that in some respects we have never been closer to solving the problems that have plagued us for decades. We are committed to stay the course and to deliver a better agreement for all the people of Northern Ireland."
We always have to be cautious, but at the very least that sounds like the word of a politician who just may be prepared to make a historic compromise and end his political career on a creative rather than a destructive note.
