A decade following the UK stumbled into a rushed public vote that split the country and caused turmoil, a caution emerges from across the Irish Sea: it might repeat.
The government and citizens entered unwittingly Brexit and the identical could occur with a national vote on a unified Ireland, sparking convulsions for which nobody is ready.
That represents the warning from two leading commentators from either side of the Irish border who have collaborated to scrutinise the advantages and disadvantages of Northern Ireland leaving the UK to create a fresh nation with the Republic of Ireland.
Governmental Establishments Not Ready
Fintan O’Toole and Sam McBride, have determined that the political establishments in Ireland and Britain are gravely ill-prepared for a potentially contentious and transformative referendum.
"The key takeaway of Brexit remains unheeded, which is that developments can emerge unexpectedly and can gain traction swiftly," the commentator stated. "It is my view that the political architecture of our islands remains extremely volatile."
Released Volume Aims to Stir Debate
The team have examined the governmental, economic and societal reasons for any governmental shift in a volume, The Case For and Against Unification, released by the Dublin-based Royal Irish Academy.
They hope to encourage dialogue on the topic with a tour of lectures that will take them to Westminster in the coming weeks.
"What troubles everyone, or ought to concern everybody, is the Brexit referendum of 2016," commented the analyst.
"We should prevent a national vote on a binary, unclear proposal whose consequences have not been spelled out because then you land with an extraordinarily split population where the losing side are resistant to losing and the people who have won lack clarity exactly what it is that they have won."
Legal Framework
Under the peace accord, the Northern Ireland government minister should call a public vote on Irish unity if it appears likely that a most voters would vote in favour.
Sinn Féin and other nationalists argue that moment is imminent, and a organisation called Ireland’s Future has garnered backing, but authorities in Dublin and London and unionists minimise the prospect, resulting in ambiguity if and when there could be a national vote.
Insufficient Informed Dialogue
Partisan language for and against unification has hidden the lack of substantive discussion, said McBride.
"Many are for or against the idea but the actual thinking which might go beyond that to achieve it hasn't for the most part happened. A lot has taken place in academia but hardly any elected officials or activists seek to involve themselves even with the fundamentals. To illustrate, what sort of state would you want? Centralised? Decentralised?"
Volume's Strategy
In the publication, none of the commentators advocates unity or the status quo. Each writes two pieces that aim for neutrality in presenting the case for a unified Ireland and the rationale opposing it, assembling financial and social figures, previous instances and constitutional models.
Debates cover identity markers, duties, healthcare systems, retirement funds, sovereign debt obligations and the danger of pro-UK militancy. The aim is to enlighten and stimulate dialogue.
"There's huge interest in the subject but there hasn't quite been a discussion," commented the writer. "Dialogue suggests an acknowledgement of the idea that there might be valid points on each side."
Dual Referendums
A public vote in Northern Ireland would simultaneously prompt one in the Republic of Ireland, where the electorate report they support unification but oppose greater financial contributions or adopting a alternative symbol to recognise unionists' British identity.
"Policymakers in Ireland should determine what the offer from pro-unification movements is aside from just declaring: 'We seek a unified Ireland and we love you'," remarked the commentator.
Possibility of Referendum
McBride believes a referendum in his generation is likely and that it might occur unexpectedly. "You could have just a mad or a ill-advised or a negligent government minister who declares: 'Let us proceed and settle the matter.'"
Both pro-unification advocates and unionists have plausible, valid points, he said. "One side will prevail in this matter and somebody will in the end not succeed but each side has possesses valuable insights to learn from the opposing positions."
Request for Wider Dialogue
Westminster should engage with the debate, said O’Toole. "This is about the United Kingdom. It's a British question just as much as it is an Irish matter."
