There are obvious difficulties about a bipartisan policy in any major area of national interest, all the more so when the subject is as weighed down with historical baggage as the North. It has been to the credit of all the political parties in this State that, by and large, the old inflexibilities and prejudices derived from the Civil War period have been sublimated in the response by politicians to the last quarter of a century of turbulence north of the Border.
Certain broad principles have been introduced into the equation, eliminating the tacit assumption that unionists will have to be pushed into a united Ireland and substituting a more realistic approach to the underlying cultural and historical problems. Notwithstanding governmental changes, there has been little deviation from a common policy based on securing the rights of the minority in Northern Ireland, ending violence and attempting to create the conditions in which political dialogue can lead to understanding and an eventual settlement.
The dispute between the Taoiseach and the leader of Fianna Fail should not be seen as more than it is a squabble between the two men into which it is more accurate to read personal rivalry than a major rift on policy. Neither of the other two Coalition leaders has joined in, underlining Mr Bruton's individual responsibility for the exchange of words with Mr Ahern. For his part, Mr Ahern has been justified in stressing his party's commitment to bipartisanship since it went into opposition, in spite of worries about some aspects of the Government's strategy.
There were some sour grapes in Mr Ahern's original remarks, at Arbour Hill two weeks ago, specifically in his reference to Mr Spring's switching of support from Mr Reynolds to Mr Bruton. The general theme he articulated, to a Fianna Fail audience, was a strongly partisan interpretation of recent events, shot through with wishful thinking and dubious logic. Any student of coat trailing in the North could have told Mr Bruton that, as Taoiseach, he was getting on to dangerous ground by responding in the tetchy and dogged way he has done. It takes two to make an issue of bipartisanship, and Mr Bruton would have shown better judgment, and done more for the peace process, if he had not chosen to trade insult for insult with Mr Ahern.
That he can hold himself back, he demonstrated with his Fingal speech on April 30th, which was mature and poised. Yet this reaction, in his guise as head of the Coalition Government, was sandwiched between two other utterances, one of which, in Mullingar this week, was deliberately on the ground Mr Ahern chose initially a party function. Specifically, he erred badly in suggesting that Mr Ahern's "unbalanced approach" to events in the North might reflect his attitude to pluralism in this State; the question is much more complex and irrational than Mr Bruton implies, and opens up contradictions which are irrelevant to the matter in hand.
What the public would like to see is evidence of consultation between the leaders of the political parties to avoid the kind of disruptive exchanges of the past few weeks. It may be only a case of nervous tension before the scheduled date for talks, but that is a luxury Taoisigh cannot afford. Ms Harney was right to call for a return to emphasising areas of agreement rather than rehashing old disputes.