A decade after the UK embarked on a hasty public vote that polarised the nation and triggered turmoil, a advisory comes from beyond the Irish Sea: it could happen again.
Policymakers and voters sleepwalked into Brexit and the identical might transpire with a referendum on a unified Ireland, initiating disturbances for which no one is equipped.
That is the message from two leading writers from each side of the Irish border who have collaborated to analyse the pros and cons of Northern Ireland exiting the UK to form a different country with the Republic of Ireland.
Administrative Structures Ill-Equipped
Fintan O’Toole and The Northern Ireland editor, have concluded that the government bodies in Ireland and Britain are woefully unready for a potentially contentious and monumental referendum.
"The lesson of Brexit remains unheeded, which is that stuff can come out of the blue and can gain traction swiftly," the commentator stated. "In my opinion that the institutional structure of our islands remains highly fragile."
Released Volume Aims to Stir Debate
The pair have studied the political, economic and cultural reasons for any constitutional change in a book, For and Against a United Ireland, published by the Irish Royal Irish Academy.
They seek to stir debate on the matter with a tour of speaking events that will lead them to Westminster soon.
"What concerns everyone, or must worry everybody, is the Brexit vote of 2016," commented O’Toole.
"We must avoid a national vote on a yes-no, unclear proposal whose implications have remained undefined because then you end up with an extremely polarised community where people who have lost are not reconciled to losing and the those successful are uncertain quite what it is that they have won."
Legal Framework
Under the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland official must arrange a public vote on Irish unification if it seems probable that a most voters would approve.
Nationalist parties and other pro-unification groups argue this point is looming, and a non-profit named pro-unification advocates has built momentum, but both governments and pro-UK factions minimise the prospect, making it uncertain if and when there will be a national vote.
Absence of Informed Dialogue
Political rhetoric for and against unity has masked the lack of informed dialogue, stated McBride.
"Individuals are often for or against the idea but the detailed consideration which might go beyond that to make it possible is mostly absent. A lot has gone on in universities but scarcely any politicians or campaigners want to engage even with the essentials. As an example, which kind of country would you want? Unitary? Federal?"
Publication's Method
In the publication, no writer supports unification or the status quo. They composes two articles that seek impartiality in laying out the argument for a unified Ireland and the argument opposing it, marshalling economic and societal statistics, previous instances and constitutional models.
Debates cover national emblems, duties, health services, retirement funds, sovereign debt obligations and the threat of pro-UK militancy. The aim is to inform and stimulate conversation.
"Considerable attention exists in the subject but there hasn't quite been a dialogue," stated the writer. "Debate suggests an recognition of the concept that there could be valid points on both sides."
Parallel Votes
A referendum in Northern Ireland would also trigger one in the republic, where citizens report they support unity but oppose increased taxation or implementing a alternative symbol to recognise pro-UK communities' British identity.
"Authorities in Dublin does need to determine what the plan from Irish nationalism is aside from just stating: 'We seek a united Ireland and we love you'," said the commentator.
Probability of Public Vote
McBride considers a national vote in his era is possible and that it might occur suddenly. "There might be just a mad or a ill-advised or a incompetent official who says: 'Let us proceed and settle the matter.'"
Each of the pro-unification advocates and unionists have plausible, legitimate arguments, he stated. "One side will succeed in this matter and somebody will in the end not succeed but both parties has possesses something to acquire from the opposing arguments."
Appeal for Wider Dialogue
Westminster should engage with the debate, stated O’Toole. "This is about Britain. It's a British question just as much as it is an Irish issue."
