A decade after the UK embarked on a hurried public vote that polarised the nation and unleashed disorder, a warning emerges from beyond the Irish Sea: it could happen again.
Policymakers and electorate drifted into Brexit and the identical might transpire with a referendum on a unified Ireland, triggering disturbances for which no one is ready.
That is the message from two prominent writers from both sides of the Irish border who have joined forces to scrutinise the benefits and drawbacks of Northern Ireland exiting the UK to form a different country with the Republic of Ireland.
Governmental Establishments Ill-Equipped
Fintan O’Toole and Sam McBride, have found that the government bodies in Ireland and Britain are woefully unready for a potentially fraught and seismic public vote.
"The crucial insight of Brexit has gone unabsorbed, which is that events can arise suddenly and can build support very quickly," the commentator stated. "It is my view that the political architecture of our islands remains highly fragile."
Book Publication Seeks to Encourage Dialogue
The pair have analysed the political, financial and cultural rationales for any governmental shift in a book, The Case For and Against Unification, issued by the Irish Royal Irish Academy.
They hope to encourage dialogue on the matter with a series of speaking events that will lead them to Westminster in the coming weeks.
"What haunts all parties, or should haunt everybody, is the Brexit vote of 2016," stated O’Toole.
"We must avoid a referendum on a yes-no, vague proposition whose consequences have not been clarified because then you end up with an highly split population 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 won."
Legal Framework
Under the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland official is obliged to schedule a referendum on Irish unity if it appears likely that a majority would approve.
Nationalist parties and other pro-unification groups say that moment is imminent, and a organisation named pro-unification advocates has built momentum, but both governments and unionists downplay the prospect, resulting in ambiguity if and when there might be a referendum.
Lack of Informed Dialogue
Ideological statements for and against unity has masked the absence of serious debate, stated the journalist.
"Many are supportive or opposed the concept but the actual thinking which may surpass that to make it possible is mostly absent. A lot has gone on in universities but hardly any politicians or advocates seek to involve themselves with even the fundamentals. As an example, which kind of country should be desired? Centralised? Federal?"
Publication's Method
In the book, neither author endorses unity or the existing arrangement. Both authors two articles that aim for impartiality in detailing the case for a united Ireland and the argument against, assembling economic and social statistics, historical precedents and constitutional models.
Discussions encompass identity markers, taxes, healthcare systems, retirement funds, public liabilities and the threat of pro-UK militancy. The goal is to inform and encourage dialogue.
"There is significant curiosity in the subject but there hasn't quite been a dialogue," stated O’Toole. "Discussion suggests an acceptance of the notion that there might 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 say they support unity but refuse paying higher taxes or adopting a different emblem to recognise pro-UK communities' British culture.
"Policymakers in Ireland does need to determine what the proposal from Irish nationalism is other than just saying: 'We desire a united Ireland and we value you'," remarked O’Toole.
Possibility of Public Vote
The journalist considers a national vote in his era is probable and that it could happen unexpectedly. "You could have just a mad or a bad or a negligent secretary of state who declares: 'We should proceed and resolve it.'"
Both nationalists and unionists have reasonable, valid arguments, he said. "Somebody will prevail in this matter and somebody will eventually not succeed but all factions has possesses valuable insights to learn from the alternative viewpoints."
Request for More Extensive Debate
Westminster needed to engage with the debate, said the analyst. "This is about Britain. It's a British issue just as much as it is an Irish matter."
