Here is an intriguing insight into differing Irish and British attitudes to Northern Ireland. On Sunday night the first part of a new television history of the peace process will be broadcast on RTE 1 and BBC 2. The content of the programmes is, of course, the same, but there is a small difference in the title.
On the BBC, the series is called Endgame in Ireland. On RTE, a cautious question mark has been added, namely Endgame in Ireland? I am told that each of the national broadcasting corporations was adamant about its preferred choice.
The makers of the series are not afraid of tackling the big subjects. Before this, Norma Percy and her team made the award-winning Death of Yugoslavia and The Fifty Years War, about the conflict in the Middle East. They have brought the same resources and steely determination to get the inside story of the past 20 years in Northern Ireland.
This is the history of the peace process told from the corridors of power. Among those who contribute to the narrative are four Taoisigh, three British prime ministers, four secretaries of state for Northern Ireland, President Bill Clinton, assorted members of British and Irish cabinets, representatives of both houses of the US congress, officials from all sides and the parties in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps because the participants are talking about events which are mainly in the past, they are remarkably relaxed and forthcoming.
Of course they all want to look good. This is a TV history which is likely to be referred to many times. There is, nevertheless, a sense that is how events must have felt at the time they happened.
There are also some wonderful anecdotes which I won't spoil, except to urge you to look out for the one about Mrs Thatcher's gut instinct to look to Oliver Cromwell for a solution to the Irish problem.
I have to declare a very small interest here. The makers of Endgame in Ireland occasionally consulted me, as they did many other people. I imagine we will all have very different views of the finished product, but will also learn from it. For example, I had not appreciated quite how serious the Tory revolt was against John Major's part in negotiating the Downing Street Declaration, or Ken Clark's heartfelt opposition to any talks with Sinn Fein. I also gained a deeper understanding of why unionist politicians feel that they were tricked, even betrayed, by Tony Blair.
This is history viewed from the top down. My main reservation would be that it takes too little account of the shifts in opinion at grassroots level, although this has been an enormously important factor in the peace process. It will be the overwhelming public desire to see the Belfast Agreement survive which will get it and us through the present crisis.
Endgame in Ireland - and perhaps the Taoiseach should take note of this - sets the Belfast Agreement firmly in the context of a much longer and more complex historical process. The makers have taken the republican hunger strikes of 1981 as their starting point, a timely reminder that it has taken us 20 years to reach where we are now. They could as well have gone back 70 or several hundred years.
We need to recognise the scale of the task our political leaders face, to lay to rest the long and bitter legacy of conflict between these islands. The Belfast Agreement, we are told, is again in crisis. It may well be that there are more convulsions ahead. There might have to be another suspension of the Executive. David Trimble could be ousted if there is no move on IRA weapons. The UUP leader has already rendered enormous service to his own community and to all the people of this island. His place in history is secure. The same is true of others who have brought us to the point where a new and inclusive Ireland seems to be just over the horizon, most notably John Hume.
We all know, as Paul Bew put it passionately this week, that there is no going back to the days before the agreement, for the unionists or anybody else.
The political developments of recent weeks have provoked the usual predictions of doom and gloom, but there is a more positive side to them.
The dramatic increase in the vote for Sinn Fein has demonstrated that its political strategy is working, which makes any thought of a return to violence by the IRA less likely than ever. On the unionist side, the rise in DUP support means that the party (and the people it represents) will be brought fully into talks about the future. It is already overwhelmingly clear that the majority of politicians in Northern Ireland, including Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds, want devolution. There is no enthusiasm for a return to direct rule.
It may be that, given the times that are in it, RTE is right to put a question mark over the future of Northern Ireland. History offers us no guarantees, but we have travelled a considerable distance along a historic road and it is salutary to be reminded of it.
Bertie Ahern has painted a deeply gloomy scenario of what could happen in the next few weeks, to the point where he believes it could prove impossible to put the peace process back together again. He, of all people, should know that it is the job of politicians to ensure that this does not happen.
mholland@irish-times.ie