Recently, a leaked text conversation of mine attracted attention for the use of a four-letter word beginning with “F”.
That is politics. It can be blunt, and at times it can be colourful. In that context, I accept that my language could have been more carefully chosen. But the substance of the point remains more important than the phrasing.
My frustration was never about who receives credit for discussing Irish unity. It was about something more fundamental, the way in which that discussion is unfolding.
In an era of growing populism, the debate around Irish unity faces the danger of being turned into a game of political football, where parties compete to outdo one another with ever shinier strategies, ever grander roadmaps and ever louder declarations of intent.
Whether intentional or not, Simon Harris’s announcement last week that Fine Gael will develop a blueprint for Irish unity risks pushing it further in that direction.
Rather than encouraging the broad consensus that constitutional change would require, it risks introducing a more competitive dynamic into what should be a shared area of cross-party cooperation.
Ordinarily, the development of public policy involves different parties formulating competing ideas, debating them and refining them through democratic scrutiny.
That is healthy and necessary.
However, in today’s political climate where populism is on the rise, it is just as important to examine the subtext as it is to understand the policy itself.
The danger is not that Irish unity is being discussed too much but using the issue to score political points and whether it is becoming a vehicle for political positioning rather than shared preparation.
Instead of building upon the significant work already undertaken, preparation for constitutional change is becoming associated with party identities rather than a shared national process capable of commanding confidence across the island.
If we cannot find unity of purpose in the South, how can we hope to achieve unity across the island?
Constitutional projects become dangerous when politicians compete over narratives before building consensus around facts. We need only look across the Irish Sea for an example.
The Brexit campaign became an exercise in political point scoring, with parties and factions competing to outdo one another in pursuit of electoral advantage.
Fundamental questions about trade, borders, regulation, citizenship and public services were often treated as secondary to campaign messaging. The result has been years of uncertainty and division.
We in Ireland should be determined not to repeat that mistake.
We should look to one of the greatest political achievements in our history, the Good Friday Agreement.
The Good Friday Agreement was built on consensus, cooperation and patient negotiation, not party competition.
The constitutional architecture of modern Ireland emerged through years of engagement between governments, political parties and civic society. It succeeded because nobody could claim ownership of it. It belonged to everyone.
That is the lesson that should guide any conversation about the future constitutional shape of this island.
When it comes to planning for unity, the people who matter most are often the least represented in the debate.
Much of the discussion takes place between southern politicians and nationalist commentators. Yet the constitutional question will ultimately be decided by many people who are neither.
It will be decided by those who identify as Northern Irish rather than British or Irish. It will be decided by unionists. It will be decided by people whose primary concern is stability, prosperity and public services rather than constitutional identity.
Every party blueprint is written with existing supporters in mind. The real challenge is persuading those who are not already convinced.
That is why practical cooperation matters far more than political branding.
In recent years, some of the most significant progress in building relationships across the island has not come through constitutional declarations or political roadmaps. It has come through practical cooperation.
Investment in infrastructure, research, education, health and community engagement has helped strengthen connections between people and institutions North and South.
The Shared Island Initiative is perhaps the clearest example of this approach. It has supported more than 35 projects across the island, backed major investment commitments and encouraged dialogue between communities that may otherwise never have engaged with one another.
Its value lies not in advancing a particular constitutional position, but in creating greater understanding, stronger relationships and a deeper appreciation of the realities of life on both sides of the border.
This is what meaningful preparation looks like. It is patient, practical and often unglamorous. It is measured in relationships built, barriers removed and trust established.
We have spent decades trying to overcome the tribalism that scarred Northern Ireland. The last thing we should do is import a new form of tribalism into the conversation about its future.
The question facing Ireland is not whether preparation for constitutional change should take place. It should. The question is whether that preparation will be conducted as a shared national endeavour or as a competition between political parties seeking ownership of the same idea.
The lesson of the Good Friday Agreement is that lasting constitutional progress is built through consensus, patience and inclusion. The lesson of Brexit is that constitutional questions become far more difficult when politics gets ahead of preparation.
If Irish unity is ever to become a reality, it will require more than blueprints, slogans or competing claims of leadership.
It will depend on building trust from those who are uncertain, reassurance for those who are apprehensive and confidence among those whose support cannot be taken for granted.
True republicanism was never about dominance or ‘winning’. It was about equality, inclusion and the idea of a society where everyone belongs.
No single political party owns the idea of Irish unity, and nor should it. It is a question that can only be answered collectively.
That responsibility belongs to all of us.