Ten years following the UK entered into a hasty public vote that split the country and triggered turmoil, a advisory is issued from across the Irish Sea: it could happen again.
Policymakers and electorate sleepwalked into Brexit and the similar might transpire with a referendum on a united Ireland, initiating convulsions for which nobody is equipped.
That represents the warning from two respected journalists from both sides of the Irish border who have teamed up to examine the pros and cons of Northern Ireland exiting the UK to form a different country with the Republic of Ireland.
Governmental Institutions Not Ready
The author and columnist and Sam McBride, have found that the administrative systems in Ireland and Britain are extremely ill-prepared for a possibly tense and seismic public vote.
"The lesson of Brexit remains unheeded, which is that stuff can come out of the blue and can gather momentum rapidly," the commentator remarked. "In my opinion that the political architecture of our archipelago remains extremely volatile."
Book Publication Seeks to Stir Debate
The team have studied the governmental, financial and cultural rationales for any constitutional change in a volume, For and Against a United Ireland, issued by the Irish Royal Irish Academy.
They aim to encourage dialogue on the topic with a tour of public talks that will bring them to Westminster in the coming weeks.
"What troubles everybody, or should haunt all involved, is the Brexit vote of 2016," stated the analyst.
"We must avoid a national vote on a yes-no, ambiguous question whose results have remained undefined because then you find yourself with an extremely divided society where people who have lost are resistant to losing and the victorious side are uncertain exactly what it is that they have won."
Constitutional Provision
Under the Good Friday agreement, the Northern Ireland official is obliged to schedule a referendum on Irish unification if it appears likely that a most voters would vote in favour.
Sinn Féin and other pro-unification groups say that moment is approaching, and a non-profit called pro-unification advocates has rallied support, but authorities in Dublin and London and unionists minimise the prospect, leaving it unclear whether or when there might be a national vote.
Insufficient Serious Debate
Ideological statements for and against unity has masked the absence of serious debate, said McBride.
"Many are supportive or opposed the idea but the actual thinking which could extend past that to make it possible is mostly absent. A great deal has occurred in universities but hardly any government figures or advocates are willing to participate with even the fundamentals. To illustrate, what type of nation might be preferred? Centralised? Decentralised?"
Publication's Method
In the volume, none of the commentators supports unification or the current situation. Each writes two pieces that strive for objectivity in laying out the rationale for a unified Ireland and the argument against, marshalling financial and social statistics, past examples and constitutional models.
Discussions cover national emblems, taxes, healthcare systems, pensions, public liabilities and the risk of unionist unrest. The aim is to inform and provoke dialogue.
"Considerable attention exists in the issue but there is still lacking a dialogue," said O’Toole. "Debate indicates an acknowledgement of the concept that there might be good arguments on both sides."
Parallel Votes
A public vote in Northern Ireland would simultaneously prompt one in the Republic of Ireland, where the electorate claim they support unity but oppose greater financial contributions or introducing a different emblem to reflect pro-UK communities' British identity.
"Authorities in Dublin does need to work out what the offer from pro-unification movements is other than just saying: 'We seek a united Ireland and we welcome you'," said O’Toole.
Possibility of Public Vote
McBride believes a referendum in his era is possible and that it may take place abruptly. "It is possible just a irresponsible or a ill-advised or a negligent official who declares: 'We should proceed and resolve it.'"
Each of the nationalists and pro-UK supporters have plausible, legitimate points, he commented. "One side will win here and somebody will eventually lose but both parties has has valuable insights to gain from the alternative positions."
Appeal for Broader Debate
Westminster must engage with the debate, stated the analyst. "This involves Britain. It's a UK matter just as much as it is an Irish question."
