It was back this week with a vengeance as a series of fast- moving events brought home to us just how much the world has changed since we rose for the summer recess. In its own way the bankruptcy of Swissair was the most striking manifestation of change.
Switzerland of all countries and if it can happen there and to a company like Swissair then nobody, no company anywhere, is safe. It certainly brought an air of reality to Thursday's debate on Aer Lingus where quite literally the previously unthinkable is now a very threatening possibility.
The announcement of the abortion package took most of us by surprise. It was all very carefully choreographed, and in the early stages at least the feeling was that it would work, especially with the early endorsement of Des Hanafin and William Binchy and a generally positive media response and the muted nature of any opposition.
The view was that Bertie had done his homework. The PDs were signed up, not all that comfortably, at least if one is to judge by the absence of Liz O'Donnell's smile at the press conference, but at least with an outward show of solidarity and no obvious pining for the lost liberalism of yesteryear.
The Independents were purring contentedly - not in Drapier's view that there was ever real danger from that source - and the assumption was that Bertie would not have gone ahead without at least a tacit nod, if not a wink, from his archiepiscopal neighbour in Drumcondra.
Add to all that the confusion in the Labour Party following the rejection of the leadership line on abortion at the Cork conference and its new pro-choice stance. Nobody should ever be surprised that something like this happens at a Labour Party conference. As Albert Reynolds might say, "that's Labour for you", and the party faithful have never lost their iconoclastic streak or taken to touching their forelocks. In Drapier's view it does them credit but that was hardly the view of Ruairi Quinn or Liz McManus as Bertie Ahern pulled his constitutional rabbit out of the hat on Tuesday.
Labour had little room to manoeuvre but in Drapier's view the party handled it well, kept its cool, not minimising the fact that there was a real problem, but making it clear it was one they would face up to. Liz McManus in particular put in some very good performances but even with that, the party was left very much on the back foot as the controversy began.
Will the Government strategy work?
Drapier gives it a good chance. For a start the mood has changed. The hatreds and animosities of the 1980s are gone, certainly for the present and hopefully for good. No party wants to split itself on the issue, and Drapier suspects that this reflects the public mood. Most people in here, Drapier suspects, want to treat the issue like any other piece of legislation, to be examined in principle at Second Stage, in detail at Committee Stage and judged, not against absolute standards but in terms of humanity, effectiveness and fairness.
Such a climate may be difficult to sustain, especially if some of the fundamentalists are given their head. Des Hanafin and William Binchy were careful to distance themselves from Youth Defence, with its inflammatory language and bootboy tactics, but Drapier has little doubt that before much longer the very moderation of the Taoiseach's proposal will be judged by these people and found wanting. Nobody need be surprised if we see some re-runs of old and nasty ways.
Drapier however will not be unduly put out by this, but he does see some real dangers ahead. Going down the route of both legislation and Constitution is novel and the proposed legislation raises very many questions which have not as yet been addressed.
Michael Noonan made this point effectively in the Dβil and in his subsequent letter to the Taoiseach. What was surprising was the brusque dismissal of Noonan by a "Government spokesperson" who described the questions as "spurious". They are nothing of the sort, but in any event it is the job of the opposition to ask such questions - and many more. Otherwise every Government pronouncement would be treated as the final word on the subject.
It was a curious response especially given the Government's piously stated desire for "consensus". Consensus means talking to the other crowd, not dismissing their legitimate questions. It may just have been an arrogant one-off, or it may be that the Government sees a political opportunity to catch the Opposition parties offside and possibly even split them. If that is the intention then the Government should think again. The opposition parties have been down this road too often to allow themselves be split - especially with the election so close.
It may well be the Government has answers that will satisfy a majority that this is the road to go - or it may not. The real danger however is that in answering questions explicitly, as it will be asked to do, real problems will be caused for some significant groups who seem at present to be on side.
Drapier is thinking in particular of some of the evidence given by the Catholic Church spokespersons to the Committee on the Constitution. To Drapier's untutored eye there are some potentially serious conflicts ahead, but we must wait and see. In the past we complained about legislating for abortion through a simple constitutional amendment. Many of us thought it a crude device, simplistic and open to challenge. Now that we have a legislative approach we see only too clearly how the devil can be, and possibly will be, in the detail.
The one positive aspect however is the new determination to treat the matter calmly and as far as possible put the issue on as broadly acceptable a footing as is possible. There is a new maturity, but for some the temptation to play party politics may prove irresistible, and as Drapier often says about politics, even the best laid plans have an awful habit of going seriously awry.
Apart from Sellafield which put Joe Jacob back in the limelight again the other big story this week was the Seβn Doherty inquiry. Drapier has followed events carefully and believes the committee is doing a good and careful job. But he also sees powerful vested interests determined to frustrate and, if possible, destroy the committee.
Drapier is noted for his calm and reasoned view of life and is not given to conspiracy theories. But we have seen in the past the concerted and expensive legal efforts to block Flood, McCracken and Jim Mitchell's PAC. What we are getting now is a re-run, and there is no certainty that the committee will be allowed to finish its work.
What Drapier found most puzzling this week was that the High Court could stop the inquiry in its tracks having heard one side of the story, but no judge could be found on Thursday to hear the other side of the story.