The Taoiseach was correct to say the IRA statement of May 6th is of seminal significance and unprecedented in the history of the Provisional movement. Although it perhaps raises as many questions as it answers, the statement represents a quantum leap forward.
Over the next week David Trimble will have to press that message home time and again. He needs to persuade unionists that the latest IRA statement marks a clear breach with the past.
In 1972, the Official IRA suspended "all armed military actions", but there was no word of arms. In 1962, the IRA called a halt and dumped arms, but renewed its "pledge of eternal hostility to the British Forces of Occupation in Ireland" and looked forward to "the final and victorious phase of the struggle".
While lacking his eloquence, the statement can be compared with Eamon de Valera's call to "Soldiers of the Republic, Legion of the Rearguard" to end the Civil War: "The Republic can no longer be defended successfully by your arms . . . Other means must be sought to safeguard the nation's right."
However, bitter experience always causes unionists to treat IRA statements with extreme caution. It has been no different this time. In its 1994 ceasefire statement the IRA announced a "complete cessation of military operations".
In the debate over the issue of the ceasefire's permanence, John Hume intervened, stating that complete and permanent meant the same thing. As the families of the victims of Canary Wharf and of Constables Johnston and Graham know to their cost, Mr Hume was wrong. Now the IRA is offering to "initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use".
Unionists will have to be convinced that completely means permanently in this context if the deal on the table is to be carried on May 27th. It is not the most favourable backdrop against which to sell this complex deal.
The Mitchell review fiasco did nothing to encourage a magnanimous frame of mind. The demand for prior or simultaneous decommissioning had been set aside on the clear understanding, belief and expectation - shared by Senator Mitchell - that a start to decommissioning would shortly follow the activation of the institutions.
As Gen de Chastelain's report of January 31st revealed, however, there had been no substantive engagement between the IRA interlocutor and the Decommissioning Commission during the life of the Executive.
No one should underestimate the magnitude of what is being asked of the UUC delegates. Anti-agreement unionists will say it is asking too much. Their difficulty will be in persuading a majority of delegates that, whatever its shortcomings, the IRA statement is of no significance whatever.
No army intent on victory can tolerate its weapons being inspected and its dumps being compromised. Why did Saddam Hussein resist UN inspectors being given access to his military installations to the point of provoking Allied bombardment of Baghdad if arms inspection was of no consequence?
The temptation for delegates will be to focus solely on previous republican bad faith. To do so would be to close minds to the most revolutionary aspect of the IRA statement. Traditional republican lore had it that unionism was a dysfunctional philosophy, the product of the machinations of British imperialism.
Previously the IRA was offering to take its weapons out of the equation only "in the context of the removal of the causes of conflict". At Easter it defined Partition as the cause of conflict. The IRA now says "republicans and unionists can, as equals, pursue their respective political objectives peacefully".
Its analysis might still be that Partition is the root cause of division, but the possibility of the Union continuing on a progressive and equal basis has been left open. The IRA appears to have finally digested the philosophy of the Good Friday agreement.
Nationalists have been exasperated by the continuing negotiations this week and the postponement of the UUC meeting. To nationalists it seems inconceivable that unionists could run the risk of throwing away such a valuable prize as IRA acceptance of consent over the name of the police force and the flying of the Union flag. Nothing is ever quite that simple.
Nationalists are quite right to say that consent cuts both ways. If Northern Ireland is to remain part of the United Kingdom so long as that is the wish of a majority, nationalists have a right to institutions that they can give allegiance to. That is why nationalists have an automatic right to participate in the Executive.
But the Executive governs over a region of the UK. The Tricolour flies over Leinster House all the time. In the British tradition the national flag flies over government buildings on certain prescribed days. Is it any wonder, therefore, that when Sinn Fein ministers refused to observe the established practice, unionists suffered a crisis of confidence in the devolution settlement?
The Secretary of State was forced to act on flags in order to vindicate the Good Friday agreement. If the Irish State learned anything over the course of the Troubles it was that unionists' attachment to their citizenship was unshakeable, the more so after having to defend it from republican assault for 30 years.
Nationalists must ask themselves: why did a majority of unionists vote for the Good Friday agreement if Northern Ireland was only to be part of the United Kingdom for now and every effort made to pretend it was not? It is as though the old Articles 2 and 3 were to be removed and simply made government policy instead.
Likewise on policing. Everyone wants a police force which, to use Brian Cowen's words, has "widespread acceptance". All the parties to the agreement signed up to "a new start for policing in Northern Ireland". But widespread acceptance means unionist acceptance as well as nationalist acceptance and a new start to policing means a new nationalist attitude towards the police as much as reforming the police to please nationalists.
Seamus Mallon seemed to accept the point in a long debate on policing during the talks. On March 23rd, 1998, the UUP argued for the retention of the RUC. Sinn Fein argued for disbandment. Mr Mallon tried to reconcile the two positions. Retaining the name Royal Ulster Constabulary did not satisfy the nationalist requirement for change, he argued.
In the light of unionist sensitivities about recognising the RUC's role in bringing about peace and the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the UK, he proposed the name Royal Northern Ireland Police Service. Now we are supposed to believe that eradication of the Royal title is an act of faith for the SDLP.
Mr Mallon's attempts to present himself as an honest broker lack all credibility. Given Mr Mallon's previous position, it seems perverse to threaten the current deal over the question of incorporating the RUC's name in the formal title of the police.
Facing into Saturday week's meeting, many unionists find themselves caught on the horns of a Hegelian dilemma.
On the one hand they are reluctant to re-enter the Executive because the position of their partners to the agreement seems increasingly flaky, particularly on the principle of consent. At the same time acceptance of the constitutional reality is only on offer from nationalists on the basis of the restoration of the inclusive institutions.
Hegel's response would have been that in order to learn to swim you have to get wet. Difficulties there are in abundance, but without the Assembly and the Executive no opportunity exists to resolve them. Next week unionism will have to take the plunge.
Steven King is a member of the Ulster Unionist Party