Ten years following the UK embarked on a rushed public vote that divided the country and caused chaos, a warning emerges from across the Irish Sea: it might repeat.
The government and citizens entered unwittingly Brexit and the same may happen with a national vote on a unified Ireland, sparking convulsions for which nobody is equipped.
That is the message from two respected writers from either side of the Irish border who have collaborated to scrutinise the advantages and disadvantages of Northern Ireland leaving the UK to form a different country with the Republic of Ireland.
Political Structures Ill-Equipped
The author and columnist and Sam McBride, have determined that the political establishments in Ireland and Britain are gravely ill-prepared for a possibly fraught and monumental referendum.
"The key takeaway of Brexit hasn't been learned, which is that developments can arise suddenly and can build support very quickly," the commentator remarked. "In my opinion that the political architecture of our region remains very unstable."
New Title Aims to Provoke Discussion
The team have analysed the governmental, financial and societal arguments for any constitutional change in a publication, The Case For and Against Unification, published by the Irish Royal Irish Academy.
They seek to provoke discussion on the issue with a series of public talks that will bring them to Westminster soon.
"What concerns everybody, or ought to concern every person, is the Brexit referendum of 2016," commented O’Toole.
"We should prevent a national vote on a binary, ambiguous question whose implications have not been spelled out because then you end up with an extraordinarily split population where those defeated are resistant to defeat and the victorious side don't know quite what it is that they have achieved."
Governmental Mandate
Under the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland government minister must arrange a referendum on Irish unification if it appears likely that a most voters would approve.
Sinn Féin and other nationalists say such a time is imminent, and a non-profit named Ireland’s Future has garnered backing, but authorities in Dublin and London and pro-UK factions minimise the prospect, leaving it unclear if and when there could be a referendum.
Absence of Substantive Discussion
Partisan language for and against unity has obscured the lack of informed dialogue, noted McBride.
"Individuals are often supportive or opposed the idea but the detailed consideration which could extend past that to realise it hasn't for the most part happened. A lot has taken place in universities but very few politicians or activists seek to involve themselves with even the essentials. As an example, which kind of country should be desired? Centralised? Decentralised?"
Book's Approach
In the book, no writer supports unification or the existing arrangement. They authors two essays that strive for objectivity in presenting the rationale for a united Ireland and the rationale against, marshalling economic and social figures, past examples and constitutional models.
Arguments encompass national emblems, taxes, health services, retirement funds, national debt responsibilities and the risk of pro-UK militancy. The objective is to inform and encourage dialogue.
"There is significant curiosity in the topic but there is still lacking a discussion," stated the writer. "Discussion implies an recognition of the concept that there could be reasonable perspectives on both sides."
Simultaneous Plebiscites
A public vote in Northern Ireland would additionally cause one in the Republic of Ireland, where voters report they support unity but oppose greater financial contributions or introducing a alternative symbol to acknowledge pro-UK communities' UK heritage.
"Policymakers in Ireland does need to determine what the offer from Irish nationalism is beyond just declaring: 'We desire a unified Ireland and we value you'," said the commentator.
Possibility of Public Vote
McBride thinks a national vote in his era is likely and that it might occur abruptly. "You could have just a reckless or a poor or a feckless secretary of state who says: 'Let's just do this and resolve it.'"
Both nationalists and unionists have reasonable, legitimate arguments, he stated. "One side will win on this issue and somebody will eventually lose but both parties has has something to learn from the alternative arguments."
Appeal for More Extensive Discussion
Westminster needed to participate in the dialogue, stated O’Toole. "This is about the United Kingdom. It is a British question equally as it is an Irish question."
