Ten years following the UK stumbled into a rushed public vote that split the nation and triggered chaos, a warning comes from beyond the Irish Sea: it may occur once more.
Policymakers and electorate sleepwalked into Brexit and the identical may happen with a referendum on a unified Ireland, triggering convulsions for which nobody is equipped.
That represents the warning from two respected writers from both sides of the Irish border who have collaborated to scrutinise the pros and cons of Northern Ireland leaving the UK to establish a different country with the Republic of Ireland.
Governmental Institutions Not Ready
Fintan O’Toole and Sam McBride, have determined that the political establishments in Ireland and Britain are gravely unready for a possibly fraught and transformative public vote.
"The lesson of Brexit remains unheeded, which is that events can come out of the blue and can gain traction swiftly," the commentator stated. "In my opinion that the institutional structure of our archipelago remains very unstable."
Released Volume Intends to Encourage Dialogue
The pair have analysed the governmental, financial and cultural arguments for any constitutional change in a publication, Examining Irish Unification, published by the Dublin-based Royal Irish Academy.
They seek to encourage dialogue on the matter with a roadshow of speaking events that will lead them to Westminster soon.
"What concerns everybody, or ought to concern all involved, is the Brexit referendum of 2016," commented O’Toole.
"We should prevent a referendum on a binary, vague proposition whose results have remained undefined because then you land with an extraordinarily polarised community where those defeated are not reconciled to losing and the people who have won are uncertain precisely what it is that they have won."
Legal Framework
Under the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland government minister must arrange a public vote on Irish unification if it seems probable that a majority would vote in favour.
Nationalist parties and other nationalists claim that moment is looming, and a non-profit named Ireland’s Future has garnered backing, but authorities in Dublin and London and pro-UK factions play down the prospect, leaving it unclear when or if there might be a referendum.
Lack of Serious Debate
Ideological statements supporting and opposing unity has hidden the lack of serious debate, said the journalist.
"Individuals are often for or against the idea but the actual thinking which could extend past that to achieve it hasn't for the most part happened. A great deal has occurred in universities but scarcely any elected officials or activists are willing to participate with even the basics. For instance, which kind of country should be desired? Centralised? Federal?"
Publication's Method
In the volume, none of the commentators advocates unity or the current situation. Both writes two essays that seek objectivity in detailing the rationale for a united Ireland and the case against, marshalling financial and societal statistics, historical precedents and constitutional models.
Arguments range over flags and symbols, levies, healthcare systems, retirement funds, sovereign debt obligations and the danger of loyalist violence. The objective is to educate and provoke discussion.
"There is significant curiosity in the issue but there has not yet occurred a discussion," stated O’Toole. "Dialogue suggests an recognition of the notion that there may exist valid points on each side."
Dual Referendums
A public vote in Northern Ireland would additionally cause one in the Republic of Ireland, where citizens report they favour unity but reject increased taxation or implementing a alternative symbol to acknowledge pro-UK communities' British identity.
"Policymakers in Ireland must establish what the proposal from pro-unification movements is beyond just declaring: 'We seek a united Ireland and we welcome you'," stated O’Toole.
Likelihood of Public Vote
The journalist believes a referendum in his generation is likely and that it may take place suddenly. "There might be just a irresponsible or a poor or a feckless secretary of state who declares: 'We should proceed and resolve it.'"
Both nationalists and unionists have credible, legitimate arguments, he commented. "One side will win in this matter and somebody will eventually not succeed but both parties has has valuable insights to acquire from the opposing positions."
Call for Wider Discussion
Westminster must engage with the dialogue, said O’Toole. "This concerns the United Kingdom. It's a UK matter just as much as it is an Irish question."
