Three years after a motion calling for the deletion of Rule 21 was controversially shelved, it is set to become a major talking-point at this weekend's GAA Annual Congress, despite not appearing on the clar for the weekend.
This would be ironic as the lead-up to the 1995 Congress was dominated by coverage of motion 43, the proposal by Sligo, Carlow, Down and Dublin to abolish the rule which prohibits members of the British and Northern Ireland security forces from joining the association - yet at the end of the day, the motion never reached the floor.
A further irony lies in the fact that the then president Jack Boothman was anxious to avoid a debate which might conclude in the motion being blown out of the debate with less than a third of the vote - which would mean that it couldn't be raised again for a further three years. Now three years have passed anyway.
Events in Northern Ireland have to an extent caught the GAA on the hop but from another perspective, the timing is quite desirable. If there is to be a concerted campaign to remove Rule 21, it would take more than the week which has passed since the signing of the Northern Ireland Settlement for it to take effect.
The fact that an abolition motion isn't on the clar means that there is unlikely to be a debate on the issue (technically, standing orders could be suspended but it's hard to see that happening) so the only way in which the topic is going to be aired is in the course of president Joe McDonagh's speech.
Exactly a year into his term of office, McDonagh faces a tricky test. Going out on a limb in favour of abolition is a lonely journey as Paddy Buggy found during the centenary Congress in Belfast 14 years ago.
It is a journey that his predecessor Boothman preferred not to make in 1995 when, on the eve of the debate, he proposed that motion 43 be pulled in favour of an undertaking that Central Council convene a special congress "should circumstances in the six counties call for such action".
McDonagh is believed to be taking soundings at the moment on reactions from around the country to the current situation in the North. At the end of the day, however, the decision will be his.
He is bound to be conscious of the potential for a mixed reception if he calls for the rule to be dropped but he is equally conscious that as events in the North gather momentum (wherever that leads), the `wait and see' attitude of the past three years is becoming embarrassingly inadequate.
If the settlement is accepted by the two referendums and measures introduced for the reform of the RUC, dropping Rule 21 in the aftermath is going to look like turning up to a New Year's party in March.
Whatever happens, attention will focus on the potential staging of a special congress. There has been some speculation that next autumn's special congress, to decide on the reforms of the hurling league and championship, in Wexford could double up to deal with Rule 21.
This is unlikely on two fronts. Firstly, it's six months away and events would either have drained the momentum from the move or else stripped it of any meaning. Secondly, this weekend's congress was supposed to be held in Wexford but no venue large enough could be found. Next autumn's special congress will not have full representation rights for the counties and so the numbers will be manageable.
Part of the understanding of Congress three years ago was that the special Rule 21 congress would have full representation. This was made clear in an assurance from Boothman to Cork county secretary Frank Murphy (now chairman of the GAC). So whenever it's held, the special congress will probably be in Dublin.
