On FEBRUARY 15th the Northern Ireland Assembly is due to give its agreement to the setting up of 10 new government departments and cross-Border implementation bodies. Just a month later, according to the Northern Ireland Secretary, Mo Mowlam, Westminster will devolve powers to the institutions, as provided for in the Belfast Agreement.
The obstacle of decommissioning looms ever closer. Under the D'Hondt system, Sinn Fein is entitled to two seats in the new executive. David Trimble has said he will not - cannot - accept Sinn Fein members on to the executive prior to IRA decommissioning, and that he intends to seek a review of the agreement.
The atmosphere of crisis has become more palpable in recent days. John Hume has been in Dublin for a meeting with the Taoiseach, while David Trimble has had talks with Tony Blair. The SDLP leader believes the whole issue of decommissioning should be left to Gen John de Chastelain, but Bertie Ahern has admitted there are "no particular proposals" to put to the international body at this stage.
In a more hopeful vein, Mo Mowlam was in Dublin yesterday and, we are told, much useful work has already been done on the practical aspects of setting up the cross-Border bodies - budgets, staff legal structures and so on. Don't be surprised if next week the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister visit Belfast to engage in some high-profile cajoling of local politicians.
If David Trimble does pursue his objective of a review of the agreement, it is difficult to see what the unionist leader hopes to achieve. The section of the accord which deals with review procedures puts the onus for any decision firmly on the two governments, acting in consultation with the parties of the assembly. The governments, for their part, are bound by the terms of the agreement.
The most dramatic and destructive result of such a review would be that the whole agreement could fall into abeyance. It would then be replaced by a return to direct rule, probably with a much greater input from Dublin into the conduct of government in Northern Ireland. It is hard to see how this would please unionists.
The assembly would be prorogued, but many of the reforms initiated under the agreement would continue, for example the early release of prisoners, Chris Patten's review of the RUC, the new Human Rights Commission. However, the historic hope for a new government for Northern Ireland and a more equal relationship between both parts of this island would be lost, probably for another generation.
Very few people in either part of Ireland want this to happen. They voted overwhelmingly for a new order, accepting the compromises this would mean, including changes to the Constitution of this State.
The sense of failure and wasted opportunity that would inevitably follow any breakdown of the agreement would be devastating to people's hopes for a better future.
It is unlikely there would be any immediate return to violence by the IRA or the main loyalist paramilitaries. But we have already experienced the souring in the atmosphere that has led to an increase in savage punishment beatings and to sectarian attacks.
Beyond that, who can tell? We have seen, over and over again, during the past 30 years that a political vacuum almost inevitably leads to an upsurge in violence.
For all these reasons both David Trimble and Gerry Adams are coming under increasing pressure to make the historic concession that could move the situation forward. But we already know the reasons why such moves appear to be impossible. Close supporters of David Trimble say he would not survive as leader of the UUP if he accepted members of Sinn Fein on to an executive prior to some hand-over of weapons.
Gerry Adams is adamant the actual text of the agreement is on Sinn Fein's side and that Mr Trimble is acting in bad faith in refusing to honour his commitments. These attitudes have hardened as the issue has increasingly dominated the headlines and both men have come under pressure from their own grassroots.
There is an urgent need to encourage a much wider public debate on the issues involved. An article published in both the News Letter and the Irish News yesterday attempted to do just this. It was drawn up by a group calling itself Community Dialogue, composed of community workers from both sides of the sectarian divide. The article looks at what has been achieved since 71 per cent of the people of Northern Ireland voted for the Good Friday settlement, what will happen if the accord is seen to fail.
It then goes on to pose a series of questions to the unionist and nationalist communities. Here are some examples: Are there ways other than decommissioning which would demonstrate to unionists that IRA violence has ended? If it comes to a choice between going ahead with the executive without decommissioning, or seeing the whole process fail, which would you choose? Is it necessary to live through a period of ambiguity (over decommissioning) as part of the process of moving away from violence?
Sinn Fein argues that the letter of the agreement is on its side, but might it be possible for the party to look again at the "greater spirit of the agreement by giving a new lead over decommissioning"? Would it be possible for Gen de Chastelain to visit arms dumps on a regular basis to verify that arms are not being used?
The document is scrupulously fair in laying out the hopes and fears of both communities. It appeals to nationalists and unionists to try and look again at the problem of decommissioning from the other side's point of view, to remember what has already been achieved in the peace process (including the concessions made by all parties), and to consider what will be lost if the agreement falls. The authors seem to argue that if the people of Northern Ireland genuinely want a new start, they are going to have to live for some time with ambiguity and this will mean learning "not to box each other into impossible positions".
Over and over again we have seen the process go forward in a crab-like fashion, moving sideways to avoid obstacles rather than confront them head on.
The peace is far from ideal and the victims of punishment attacks are justified in saying that what has happened to them and their families is unacceptable. But, equally, Tony Blair is brave and right when he tells the House of Commons that an imperfect peace and an imperfect process are a great deal better than the decades of violence which went before.