Ten years after the UK embarked on a hurried referendum that polarised the country and triggered chaos, a warning emerges from across the Irish Sea: it could happen again.
Authorities and citizens sleepwalked into Brexit and the similar might transpire with a national vote on a unified Ireland, initiating convulsions for which no one is ready.
That is the message from two respected journalists from either side of the Irish border who have collaborated to analyse the pros and cons of Northern Ireland exiting the UK to create a different country with the Republic of Ireland.
Governmental Structures Ill-Equipped
Fintan O’Toole and Sam McBride, have determined that the government bodies in Ireland and Britain are gravely ill-prepared for a possibly contentious and seismic public vote.
"The crucial insight of Brexit remains unheeded, which is that stuff can arise suddenly and can gain traction rapidly," O’Toole remarked. "I would suggest that the political architecture of our archipelago remains highly fragile."
New Title Aims to Encourage Dialogue
The team have analysed the political, financial and cultural arguments for any structural alteration in a book, For and Against a United Ireland, issued by the Dublin-based Royal Irish Academy.
They hope to encourage dialogue on the matter with a series of public talks that will lead them to Westminster early next month.
"What haunts everyone, or must worry everybody, is the Brexit referendum of 2016," commented O’Toole.
"We do not want a national vote on a thumbs up-thumbs down, vague proposition whose results have remained undefined because then you land with an extremely split population where the losing side are resistant to losing and the people who have won lack clarity quite what it is that they have gained."
Constitutional Provision
Under the Good Friday agreement, the Northern Ireland official must arrange a referendum on Irish unity if it seems probable that a majority would vote in favour.
Nationalist parties and other pro-unification groups argue such a time is imminent, and a group named pro-unification advocates has built momentum, but authorities in Dublin and London and pro-UK factions play down the prospect, resulting in ambiguity when or if there will be a national vote.
Lack of Serious Debate
Partisan language supporting and opposing unification has hidden the shortage of serious debate, said McBride.
"People tend to be for or against the idea but the detailed consideration which could extend past that to realise it hasn't for the most part happened. A great deal has gone on in universities but very few government figures or campaigners seek to involve themselves with the fundamentals. As an example, which kind of country should be desired? Unitary? Federal?"
Book's Approach
In the volume, no writer supports unity or the current situation. Both writes two essays that seek impartiality in laying out the argument for a unified Ireland and the argument against, assembling financial and societal figures, previous instances and constitutional models.
Arguments cover national emblems, levies, medical care, pensions, national debt responsibilities and the danger of loyalist violence. The goal is to educate and encourage discussion.
"There's huge interest in the issue but there hasn't quite been a debate," stated O’Toole. "Debate suggests an acceptance of the idea that there may exist good arguments on each side."
Dual Referendums
A public vote in Northern Ireland would simultaneously prompt one in the Republic of Ireland, where citizens claim they favour unification but refuse greater financial contributions or adopting a different emblem to reflect unionists' UK heritage.
"Policymakers in Ireland should establish what the proposal from Irish nationalism is other than just stating: 'We want a unified Ireland and we love you'," remarked the commentator.
Likelihood of Public Vote
McBride thinks a referendum in his lifetime is possible and that it may take place abruptly. "You could have just a irresponsible or a bad or a feckless government minister who states: 'Let us proceed and resolve it.'"
Both pro-unification advocates and unionists have credible, legitimate points, he said. "One side will prevail here and somebody will ultimately not succeed but each side has possesses something to acquire from the opposing arguments."
Appeal for Broader Discussion
Westminster needed to participate in the dialogue, urged the analyst. "This involves the United Kingdom. It's a UK matter as much as it is an Irish matter."
