At some point, direct rule will be the only response to SF tactics

We moved beyond deadlines into limbo, for reasons that are unclear. Is it, for example, because the government is frightened of inflaming nationalists by moving to direct rule? Or is it because people close to the talks think that in fact a deal is feasible in the coming weeks, and that it is better to avoid deadlines?

James Brokenshire yesterday moved forward in a way that neither seemed to bring direct rule any closer, nor a fixed-end point to the talks, and not an election either.

While his motives for doing that are unknown, the ultimate reason for this fog is obvious.

Sinn Fein has since late last year been behaving in a reckless and unpredictable way. It received a massive injection of confidence after its successes in the March Assembly election, in which it polled so strongly.

And while the DUP pulled well ahead again in the Westminster election, Sinn Fein nonetheless had an excellent election. Perhaps it is concluding that brinkmanship and tough tactics are going down well with nationalist voters.

The party knows that it cannot be excluded if Stormont resumes, or that at any rate there is no appetite to arrange procedures to press ahead even if Sinn Fein excludes itself.

It has been sending mixed signals for months as to whether or not it will go back to the Assembly. It might be that this reflects some debate within the party.

Certainly the way that it is insisting on various things, such as a standalone Irish language act, makes it hard to see an agreement any time soon.

While the reluctance to bring in direct rule is understandable, given the anger it will cause many people, the point will come when that step must be taken if Sinn Fein keep issuing what Arlene Foster described yesterday as “a shopping list that seems to get longer every time we meet them”.