Ten years following the UK embarked on a hasty referendum that polarised the nation and triggered disorder, a caution comes from across the Irish Sea: it may occur once more.
Policymakers and electorate entered unwittingly Brexit and the same might transpire with a referendum on a united Ireland, sparking convulsions for which no one is prepared.
That represents the warning from two leading writers from either side of the Irish border who have teamed up to examine the advantages and disadvantages of Northern Ireland departing the UK to create a fresh nation with the Republic of Ireland.
Political Structures Ill-Equipped
Fintan O’Toole and The Northern Ireland editor, have concluded that the administrative systems in Ireland and Britain are extremely unready for a possibly tense and transformative public vote.
"The crucial insight of Brexit remains unheeded, which is that stuff can emerge unexpectedly and can gain traction very quickly," O’Toole stated. "I would suggest that the political architecture of our archipelago remains highly fragile."
Released Volume Intends to Stir Debate
The team have analysed the governmental, financial and societal arguments for any governmental shift in a book, For and Against a United Ireland, issued by the Dublin-based Royal Irish Academy.
They seek to stir debate on the matter with a roadshow of lectures that will bring them to Westminster early next month.
"What troubles all parties, or ought to concern all involved, is the Brexit referendum of 2016," said the analyst.
"We should prevent a national vote on a binary, ambiguous question whose implications have not been spelled out because then you land with an highly polarised community where those defeated are resistant to losing and the those successful don't know quite what it is that they have achieved."
Legal Framework
Under the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland official should call a public vote on Irish unification if it is indicated that a majority would vote in favour.
Nationalist parties and other pro-unification groups claim this point is looming, and a group named Ireland’s Future has garnered backing, but both governments and unionists downplay the prospect, leaving it unclear if and when there could be a referendum.
Absence of Substantive Discussion
Partisan language for and against unification has masked the absence of serious debate, noted McBride.
"People tend to be supportive or opposed the notion but the concrete planning which might go beyond that to achieve it hasn't for the most part happened. A great deal has occurred in universities but very few elected officials or activists seek to involve themselves with the basics. For instance, what sort of state might be preferred? Unitary? Federal?"
Book's Approach
In the volume, no writer endorses unity or the existing arrangement. They authors two essays that aim for neutrality in detailing the rationale for a unified Ireland and the argument opposing it, marshalling financial and societal data, previous instances and governmental frameworks.
Discussions encompass identity markers, duties, medical care, pensions, national debt responsibilities and the danger of loyalist violence. The goal is to inform and stimulate dialogue.
"There is significant curiosity in the issue but there has not yet occurred a dialogue," stated the writer. "Debate indicates an acknowledgement of the notion that there may exist good arguments on each side."
Dual Referendums
A public vote in Northern Ireland would simultaneously prompt one in the republic, where voters claim they support unification but reject greater financial contributions or adopting a different emblem to recognise pro-UK communities' UK heritage.
"Policymakers in Ireland must establish what the offer from Irish nationalism is other than just stating: 'We desire a unified Ireland and we love you'," said the commentator.
Possibility of Referendum
McBride thinks a national vote in his lifetime is possible and that it may take place suddenly. "It is possible just a reckless or a poor or a negligent official who says: 'Let us proceed and settle the matter.'"
Both nationalists and unionists have credible, valid points, he stated. "Somebody will win in this matter and the other side will in the end lose but both parties has has valuable insights to gain from the alternative arguments."
Call for Wider Discussion
Westminster should engage with the debate, urged O’Toole. "This is about Britain. It is a UK matter equally as it is an Irish matter."
