There will be disappointment but no particular surprise that yesterday’s deadline for the formation of a new Stormont executive came and went with the main parties as far apart as ever.
It was inevitable that fingers would be pointed across the divide afterwards but it was also fairly clear from the start of the discussions three weeks ago that the process lacked momentum, direction and most of all goodwill.
The previous administration had obviously collapsed in acrimonious circumstances, following a lengthy decline in its credibility when alarm bells were ringing on a range of fronts, and the upheaval surrounding a second election in the space of ten months was never likely to create the atmosphere in which a breakthrough was possible.
It would have been entirely ludicrous if voters were asked to return to the polls yet again to confirm the patterns which are already firmly in place, and, even if new legislation is required, other options will have to be explored.
The onus must be on the British and Irish governments to bring some fresh thinking to the proceedings, although the indications on both sides do not look encouraging at this stage.
Theresa May has yet to display any serious interest in developments at Stormont and her astonishing assertion yesterday that Brexit was an opportunity to strengthen existing relationships within the UK suggested that she was a prime minister with almost no insight into the realities of life here.
Enda Kenny is widely expected to retire as taoiseach within a matter of weeks and is unlikely to push for a central involvement in any new northern intervention before he stands down.
Our secretary of state, James Brokenshire, has struggled to impose his authority on the negotiations, and the questions asked yesterday about his failure to call a round-table meeting over the last three weeks were entirely valid.
He had little option other than to extend the initiative for a short but unspecified period, which may be no more than a month, although it is difficult to see how a more constructive atmosphere is going to emerge in the short term.
There may well be some cynicism about the prospect of introducing one or more outside figures to help encourage an accommodation, but the present structure of the talks has not served us well to date.
If a respected new face, with a clear understanding of the relevant issues and a track record of achievement elsewhere, is available to concentrate minds, then it has to represent a risk which is worth taking.
Key budgetary decisions with major implications for the health, education and other sectors are looming, and it is completely unsatisfactory that they should be indefinitely left in the hands of unelected civil servants.
Reaching a consensus on the areas of dispute will not be easy, but, unless a change of approach can be facilitated, our devolved institutions are heading for a suspension which could persist for years rather than months.
