If nothing else has been demonstrated by the signs of instability of the loyalist ceasefire, the need for political leaders on both sides of the border to weigh their words carefully can be in no doubt. The connection between the public wrangling by the Taoiseach and the leader of Fianna Fail and the UVF bomb hoax at Dublin Airport may be tenuous and indeed non existent. The UVF has its own political agenda and internal pressures, and the unequivocal support that still exists in the UDA for maintaining the ceasefire and the political process, according to Mr Gary McMichael, suggests that provocation of loyalists is not the real reason for the current unrest.
But Mr John Taylor, last night, claimed that there was a link, and went further by alleging that there was a "chain of command" from the IRA through Mr Gerry Adams to Mr Bruton. In other circumstances an allegation of this kind would be laughable. Mr Taylor knows that it is important for the political talks scheduled to start in June to be comprehensive - indeed, he made it clear that he would welcome it if it were. It is strange logic for him to give credence to such a malign interpretation of the efforts in Dublin to achieve this purpose.
In the weeks before the election on May 30th, perhaps such language is inevitable but responsible politicians ought to avoid it. Mr Taylor is a seasoned campaigner, and he spoke in uncompromising terms about the effects of any return to violence by the UVF which he described as "politically wrong, morally wrong and economically wrong". But there was more than a touch of the studied ambiguity of his leader, Mr David Trimble, who the night before seemed to provide a kind of justification for loyalist sabre rattling while calling on loyalists not to be provoked.
What is clear is that any resumption of violence by loyalist paramilitaries would give the IRA a pretext to return to its claimed policy of defence of Catholic areas. The decision by the UDA and the UVF to call off their campaign in response to the IRA ceasefire answered one historic development with another; their decision not to be precipitated into a violent riposte when the IRA called off its ceasefire was a further sign of political maturity. It is as futile not to recognise the key importance of this element for the future of dialogue between the parties as it is for Mr Trimble and Mr Taylor to see something sinister in the efforts by Mr Bruton to bring Sinn Fein into the talks or, indeed, for Mr Ahern to question his attempt to open channels with the unionists.
"This is not a time for sitting on the fence between violence and peaceful politics", Mr Bruton said last night in relation to the choice facing Sinn Fein and the IRA. No one can dispute this. But it is also a time for all politicians to reflect that rejection of violence is only the first step in the direction of peaceful politics and constructive talks. They also need to develop a new language of conciliation that will not be understood as betrayal of principle or as a vehicle for hidden threats, but can be used for the substantial exchange of opposing views that will be necessary when the all party negotiations begin.
So far, there has not been much practical evidence of such a language developing. Everyone knows that words can kill, but they can also be used to build bridges. That is the next political lesson.