Tony Blair has announced that June 30th is the absolute deadline for reaching agreement on devolution. The consequences of failure are stark. The positive engagement of the British Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the President of the United States will have been spurned. It will mean an end to the Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council and the basic principles of the agreement. It will mean that we would fall back to direct rule and the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

As we prepare to face the few weeks left available to us to reach agreement I am reminded of the story about the scorpion and the frog. A scorpion asked a frog to carry him over a river on his back. "How can I be sure that you will not sting me?" the frog asked with appropriate scepticism.

"Think about it," replied the scorpion. "What would be the advantage to me? If I stung you, we would both drown."

In the face of such logic the frog agreed to provide the lift, but half way over the river the scorpion stung him.

"Why?" cried the frog. "Now we will both die."

"Couldn't help it," said the scorpion as they both sank. "It's in my nature . ."

Over the next few weeks we will have to work to assure each other, and the wider world, that it is not our inescapable "nature" to engage in mutually destructive behaviour, and that we realise we must work together if we are to survive and prosper.

What needs to be done?

We must focus on creating the best possible conditions to reach agreement. It is time for the voice of public opinion to assert itself. We know from the referendum and opinion polls that there is strong support for the Belfast Agreement.

The harrowing episodes concerning the "disappeared" show the enduring effect of past violence on both victim and perpetrator and the huge effort for both to come to terms with what has been done.

The terrible murder of Elizabeth O'Neill is a forewarning of what may lie ahead if the political process fails to get to grips with the situation.

Perhaps both events may serve as a catalyst to ensure that strong public support for the agreement will not be allowed to flounder ineffectually in the face of violence and political deadlock but will express itself through pressure on political leaders.

There is a challenge here North and South for business and trade unions, for the churches, for community groups and for the media, to mobilise and channel public opinion and to insist on political progress.

For the political parties and the two governments there must be acknowledgement that we are entering into the most important and most intensive political effort since the period preceding the Belfast Agreement itself.

The process of negotiation should be carefully planned and account taken of the mistakes of earlier efforts.

Some of the lessons to be learned are:

There must be shared and clear understanding of the terms used and commitments made by all participants.

All significant elements of the negotiation must be accessible and transparent to all participants. Subsequent unilateral letters of comfort together with secret deals and understandings can only undermine the achievement of the level of trust and security which must underpin any agreement.

Political parties must organise themselves to ensure that their key participants are involved and available throughout the process, and have the authority to conclude the negotiation.

The two governments must recognise that their role and responsibility go far beyond that of honest broker. As sovereign governments they have the ultimate responsibility to ensure the ending of the holding of illegal weapons. As sovereign governments they have the duty to uphold the integrity of the political process. Devolution must be on honourable and even-handed terms respecting the terms of the agreement, the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

I believe that the key to breathing new life into the negotiation on decommissioning is early agreement on the running of d'Hondt and the nomination of ministers. Ministers and their parties would be given a perspective requiring them to see beyond the immediate single issue of decommissioning and into the broader substance of real politics.

The experience of working together with other ministers on a draft programme of government to address our very real economic and social problems could help to transform the context in which decommissioning is discussed.

A dynamic would be created in which parties would recognise that accountable inclusive governments in the North and partnership and co-operation North and South are within reach.

Parties would realise that their relationships were defined not merely by decommissioning but were in fact much more complex. They would realise that decommissioning, however important, is only one of a number of issues which face our society and which require political attention.

The substances of real politics is the totality of these issues. Let me outline some which are not being properly addressed because of the impasse on decommissioning but which require immediate attention if we are to truly serve the interests of our people.

Farm incomes in Northern Ireland have fallen by more than half since 1996. The industry is in crisis with a beef export ban and the destruction of 40 per cent of pig slaughter capacity. The application of the Agenda 2000 reforms to Northern Ireland is to be finalised by the end of 1999. How can it be accepted that this momentous period in agriculture passes by without a role being played by a locally elected minister working with an Assembly agriculture committee?

In March the European heads of state voted an exceptional seven-year structural fund package for Northern Ireland in support of the peace process, including £400 million for the Peace and Reconciliation programme.

European regulations require that the details of how that money is to be spent must be worked out by the end of 1999. A special North-South body has been agreed to play a major role in drawing up these structural funds programmes and to ensure that Ireland, North and South, works together in making the best use of European funds in areas such as infrastructure networks and Border county development. How can parties allow this opportunity for a locally elected executive and assembly working with a North-South body to plan our future to be lost?

With every week that passes without resolution of decommissioning, investment and job opportunities are being lost. There are, for example, a number of US trade missions which have been planned but which are "on hold" until devolution occurs.

The devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales are now defining their relationship with Whitehall and with each other. Matters such as financial transfers, the management of inward investment and EU relations are under discussion. Northern Ireland - which could have been at the forefront - is not at the table with its own ministers to ensure that our interests are fully protected.

Exposure of ministers to pressing issues such as these and to the problems and opportunities facing a Northern Ireland executive should not be further postponed.

MY experience, and that of the SDLP in working with David Trimble and the UUP, is that the responsibility of working together provides the framework which allows differences to be overcome and a joint approach to be developed. It can be the same for all the parties who will participate in the executive.

I have always taken the view that decommissioning has served as a lightning rod for more fundamental fear and mistrust between Ulster Unionists and Sinn Fein. Both parties have fought each other to a standstill on this issue and in so doing have damaged their own internal strength and cohesion and done immense collateral damage to the overall political process.

For the impasse to be resolved both Ulster Unionists and Sinn Fein must move away from their absolutist positions.

Decommissioning is not a precondition to entry into government. I believe d'Hondt should be run. At the same time all participants should recognise that the agreement creates an obligation to carry out the process of decommissioning within the time-scale set out.

What is for negotiation is the nature, sequencing and duration of the process of decommissioning and the process of devolution, and a clear understanding by all participants of the consequences of non-compliance with what is agreed. The recent suggestions by David Trimble are a significant contribution to resolution of the impasse.

With an end in sight to the war in Kosovo it is reasonable that President Clinton and the Prime Minister will now be seeking signs of progress in Northern Ireland. Early next week the European election results will be known.

There can be no more further excuses for failure to engage constructively and to reach a historic compromise which will vindicate, one year later, the declaration made by all participants to the Belfast Agreement that it "offers a truly historic opportunity for a new beginning".

Seamus Mallon MP is Deputy First Minister (Designate), Northern Ireland Assembly