A decade following the UK embarked on a hasty public vote that split the nation and unleashed disorder, a warning is issued from beyond the Irish Sea: it might repeat.
Policymakers and voters sleepwalked into Brexit and the similar might transpire with a national vote on a united Ireland, triggering disturbances for which no one is equipped.
That conveys the caution from two leading journalists from both sides of the Irish border who have collaborated to examine the pros and cons of Northern Ireland leaving the UK to establish a new state with the Republic of Ireland.
Political Structures Ill-Equipped
Fintan O’Toole and Sam McBride, have determined that the political establishments in Ireland and Britain are gravely unready for a potentially fraught and transformative referendum.
"The crucial insight of Brexit remains unheeded, which is that developments can come out of the blue and can gain traction rapidly," O’Toole stated. "It is my view that the political architecture of our region remains highly fragile."
Released Volume Aims to Stir Debate
The duo have examined the governmental, economic and societal rationales for any structural alteration in a book, The Case For and Against Unification, issued by the Irish Royal Irish Academy.
They hope to encourage dialogue on the issue with a roadshow of public talks that will take them to Westminster in the coming weeks.
"What haunts everybody, or ought to concern everybody, is the Brexit referendum of 2016," said O’Toole.
"We must avoid a national vote on a binary, unclear proposal whose consequences have not been spelled out because then you find yourself with an highly polarised community where people who have lost are resistant to defeat and the victorious side don't know precisely what it is that they have achieved."
Constitutional Provision
Under the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland official must arrange a public vote on Irish unity if it appears likely that a majority would approve.
Nationalist parties and other nationalists argue such a time is imminent, and a organisation called pro-unification advocates has built momentum, but authorities in Dublin and London and pro-UK factions downplay the prospect, resulting in ambiguity if and when there will be a referendum.
Absence of Informed Dialogue
Partisan language supporting and opposing unification has obscured the absence of substantive discussion, said McBride.
"Many are supportive or opposed the concept but the actual thinking which could extend past that to achieve it hasn't for the most part happened. A great deal has taken place in scholarly circles but scarcely any government figures or activists want to engage with the fundamentals. To illustrate, which kind of country might be preferred? Centralised? Federal?"
Book's Approach
In the publication, none of the commentators supports unity or the status quo. Each composes two essays that aim for objectivity in laying out the rationale for a unified Ireland and the case opposing it, marshalling economic and societal figures, historical precedents and structural examples.
Arguments cover flags and symbols, levies, healthcare systems, elderly benefits, national debt responsibilities and the threat of unionist unrest. The goal is to educate and provoke conversation.
"Considerable attention exists in the issue but there is still lacking a debate," said the writer. "Dialogue suggests an acknowledgement of the idea that there could be good arguments on both sides."
Dual Referendums
A referendum in Northern Ireland would additionally cause one in the republic, where citizens say they support unity but oppose greater financial contributions or introducing a new flag to acknowledge pro-UK communities' British identity.
"Authorities in Dublin must establish what the proposal from nationalist groups is beyond just stating: 'We seek a unified Ireland and we value you'," said the commentator.
Probability of Referendum
The journalist considers a national vote in his era is probable and that it might occur unexpectedly. "There might be just a irresponsible or a poor or a incompetent official who states: 'We should proceed and settle the matter.'"
Both nationalists and unionists have credible, legitimate arguments, he said. "One side will prevail in this matter and somebody will eventually be defeated but both parties has has something to learn from the opposing viewpoints."
Appeal for Wider Debate
Westminster must engage with the discussion, stated O’Toole. "This involves the United Kingdom. It's a British issue as much as it is an Irish question."
