Ten years after the UK entered into a rushed referendum that split the nation and caused turmoil, a caution comes from across the Irish Sea: it might repeat.
Policymakers and citizens drifted into Brexit and the same may happen with a referendum on a unified Ireland, triggering disturbances for which no one is equipped.
That conveys the caution from two leading writers from both sides of the Irish border who have joined forces to analyse the pros and cons of Northern Ireland leaving the UK to form a fresh nation with the Republic of Ireland.
Administrative Establishments Unprepared
The author and columnist and The Northern Ireland editor, have found that the government bodies in Ireland and Britain are woefully unready for a possibly contentious and transformative public vote.
"The crucial insight of Brexit hasn't been learned, which is that developments can emerge unexpectedly and can build support rapidly," the commentator remarked. "It is my view that the political architecture of our islands remains highly fragile."
New Title Seeks to Encourage Dialogue
The team have studied the political, financial and societal arguments for any structural alteration in a book, For and Against a United Ireland, published by the Dublin-based Royal Irish Academy.
They hope to stir debate on the issue with a series of speaking events that will lead them to Westminster in the coming weeks.
"What haunts everyone, or ought to concern every person, is the Brexit vote of 2016," said the analyst.
"We must avoid a referendum on a yes-no, ambiguous question whose implications have not been spelled out because then you land with an extraordinarily divided society where those defeated are not reconciled to defeat and the people who have won don't know precisely what it is that they have won."
Governmental Mandate
Under the peace accord, the Northern Ireland official is obliged to schedule a referendum on Irish unification if it is indicated that a majority would vote in favour.
Nationalist parties and other pro-unification groups say such a time is imminent, and a non-profit named pro-unification advocates has built momentum, but both governments and pro-UK factions play down the possibility, resulting in ambiguity whether or when there might be a national vote.
Absence of Substantive Discussion
Partisan language supporting and opposing unification has masked the absence of informed dialogue, stated McBride.
"Individuals are often supportive or opposed the idea but the actual thinking which might go beyond that to make it possible has largely not occurred. A lot has gone on in scholarly circles but scarcely any government figures or advocates are willing to participate with even the fundamentals. For instance, what sort of state would you want? Centralised? Federal?"
Publication's Method
In the book, neither author advocates unification or the existing arrangement. Each composes two pieces that strive for neutrality in detailing the rationale for a united Ireland and the case opposing it, marshalling financial and societal data, previous instances and constitutional models.
Discussions encompass national emblems, levies, health services, retirement funds, national debt responsibilities and the threat of loyalist violence. The aim is to inform and provoke discussion.
"There's huge interest in the topic but there hasn't quite been a discussion," said O’Toole. "Dialogue indicates an acknowledgement of the notion that there might be reasonable perspectives on both sides."
Simultaneous Plebiscites
A public vote in Northern Ireland would also trigger one in the republic, where citizens report they prefer unification but refuse greater financial contributions or introducing a alternative symbol to reflect unionists' British identity.
"The Irish government must establish what the proposal from pro-unification movements is other than just saying: 'We want a united Ireland and we love you'," said O’Toole.
Probability of Public Vote
The journalist thinks a national vote in his generation is likely and that it may take place unexpectedly. "You could have just a irresponsible or a ill-advised or a feckless secretary of state who says: 'We should proceed and resolve it.'"
Both pro-unification advocates and unionists have credible, justified arguments, he stated. "One side will prevail in this matter and somebody will ultimately lose but each side has has valuable insights to learn from the alternative arguments."
Appeal for Broader Discussion
Westminster must participate in the discussion, urged the analyst. "This is about Britain. It is a UK matter just as much as it is an Irish matter."
