A decade following the UK embarked on a hurried public vote that split the country and caused disorder, a caution is issued from across the Irish Sea: it could happen again.
The government and electorate entered unwittingly Brexit and the similar may happen with a national vote on a unified Ireland, sparking convulsions for which no one is ready.
That represents the warning from two respected journalists from both sides of the Irish border who have collaborated to scrutinise the advantages and disadvantages of Northern Ireland leaving the UK to form a new state with the Republic of Ireland.
Administrative Institutions Unprepared
The author and columnist and The Northern Ireland editor, have concluded that the political establishments in Ireland and Britain are gravely ill-prepared for a potentially fraught and transformative public vote.
"The crucial insight of Brexit hasn't been learned, which is that stuff can emerge unexpectedly and can gain traction rapidly," O’Toole remarked. "I would suggest that the institutional structure of our archipelago remains very unstable."
New Title Aims to Encourage Dialogue
The pair have studied the political, economic and cultural rationales for any constitutional change in a publication, For and Against a United Ireland, released by the Dublin-based Royal Irish Academy.
They aim to encourage dialogue on the issue with a series of public talks that will lead them to Westminster soon.
"What troubles everyone, or should haunt all involved, is the Brexit vote of 2016," stated the analyst.
"We do not want a referendum on a yes-no, ambiguous question whose results have not been clarified because then you end up with an extraordinarily polarised community where people who have lost are unable to accept losing and the people who have won lack clarity quite what it is that they have gained."
Legal Framework
Under the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland secretary of state is obliged to schedule a public vote on Irish unification if it appears likely that a most voters would vote in favour.
Sinn Féin and other pro-unification groups say such a time is looming, and a group named Ireland’s Future has built momentum, but both governments and unionists downplay the possibility, leaving it unclear whether or when there will be a national vote.
Insufficient Informed Dialogue
Ideological statements supporting and opposing unity has masked the lack of informed dialogue, said McBride.
"People tend to be supportive or opposed the notion but the actual thinking which might go beyond that to achieve it is mostly absent. A great deal has taken place in scholarly circles but scarcely any government figures or advocates are willing to participate with even the fundamentals. As an example, which kind of country would you want? Unitary? Federal?"
Book's Approach
In the book, none of the commentators endorses unification or the status quo. They composes two essays that aim for impartiality in presenting the argument for a unified Ireland and the argument against, gathering economic and societal data, previous instances and constitutional models.
Discussions cover national emblems, levies, healthcare systems, elderly benefits, national debt responsibilities and the threat of loyalist violence. The objective is to enlighten and provoke conversation.
"Considerable attention exists in the subject but there has not yet occurred a dialogue," commented the writer. "Debate implies an acceptance of the concept that there could be good arguments on either side."
Parallel Votes
A referendum in Northern Ireland would additionally cause one in the Republic of Ireland, where voters report they favour unity but refuse paying higher taxes or introducing a different emblem to acknowledge unionists' British identity.
"Policymakers in Ireland must work out what the plan from nationalist groups is aside from just stating: 'We want a united Ireland and we welcome you'," said the commentator.
Likelihood of Public Vote
McBride believes a referendum in his generation is probable and that it may take place suddenly. "There might be just a irresponsible or a ill-advised or a feckless official who declares: 'We should proceed and settle the matter.'"
Each of the pro-unification advocates and pro-UK supporters have credible, legitimate arguments, he stated. "Somebody will prevail on this issue and the other side will eventually not succeed but both parties has has valuable insights to acquire from the opposing arguments."
Appeal for Broader Discussion
Westminster should join the discussion, said the analyst. "This concerns your state. It is a UK matter equally as it is an Irish matter."
