A decade after the UK embarked on a hurried public vote that split the country and triggered chaos, a warning emerges from beyond the Irish Sea: it could happen again.
The government and electorate sleepwalked into Brexit and the identical may happen with a referendum on a united Ireland, initiating convulsions for which nobody is prepared.
That represents the warning from two respected writers from either side of the Irish border who have teamed up to analyse the pros and cons of Northern Ireland exiting the UK to form a new state with the Republic of Ireland.
Administrative Structures Not Ready
Fintan O’Toole and Sam McBride, have determined that the administrative systems in Ireland and Britain are gravely ill-prepared for a potentially tense and seismic public vote.
"The key takeaway of Brexit remains unheeded, which is that events can emerge unexpectedly and can gain traction very quickly," O’Toole remarked. "In my opinion that the political architecture of our archipelago remains extremely volatile."
Released Volume Intends to Stir Debate
The pair have analysed the governmental, economic and societal arguments for any governmental shift in a volume, For and Against a United Ireland, published by the Dublin-based Royal Irish Academy.
They hope to encourage dialogue on the topic with a series of speaking events that will lead them to Westminster in the coming weeks.
"What concerns everybody, or ought to concern everybody, is the Brexit vote of 2016," stated O’Toole.
"We must avoid a national vote on a thumbs up-thumbs down, vague proposition whose consequences have not been clarified because then you land with an extraordinarily divided society where the losing side are unable to accept defeat and the people who have won are uncertain exactly what it is that they have achieved."
Constitutional Provision
Under the peace accord, the Northern Ireland official should call a referendum on Irish unification if it appears likely that a most voters would vote in favour.
Nationalist parties and other nationalists argue that moment is looming, and a organisation named Ireland’s Future has garnered backing, but authorities in Dublin and London and pro-UK factions play down the likelihood, resulting in ambiguity when or if there could be a national vote.
Insufficient Substantive Discussion
Political rhetoric supporting and opposing unification has masked the shortage of substantive discussion, noted McBride.
"Many are supportive or opposed the idea but the concrete planning which could extend past that to achieve it is mostly absent. A great deal has gone on in scholarly circles but hardly any politicians or advocates want to engage with the essentials. As an example, which kind of country should be desired? Unitary? Decentralised?"
Book's Approach
In the publication, neither author supports unity or the status quo. Each writes two articles that strive for neutrality in detailing the argument for a unified Ireland and the argument against, gathering economic and social statistics, previous instances and constitutional models.
Arguments cover flags and symbols, duties, health services, elderly benefits, public liabilities and the danger of pro-UK militancy. The objective is to enlighten and stimulate conversation.
"Considerable attention exists in the subject but there hasn't quite been a dialogue," said the writer. "Dialogue suggests an recognition of the notion that there might be good arguments on either side."
Dual Referendums
A public vote in Northern Ireland would additionally cause one in the Republic of Ireland, where voters say they favour unification but oppose greater financial contributions or adopting a different emblem to reflect unionists' British identity.
"Policymakers in Ireland must determine what the proposal from nationalist groups is aside from just declaring: 'We seek a unified Ireland and we love you'," said the commentator.
Likelihood of Public Vote
The journalist considers a referendum in his era is probable and that it may take place suddenly. "You could have just a irresponsible or a poor or a negligent official who says: 'We should proceed and settle the matter.'"
Each of the nationalists and unionists have plausible, legitimate points, he commented. "One side will succeed in this matter and somebody will in the end be defeated but both parties has has something to acquire from the alternative positions."
Request for More Extensive Dialogue
Westminster should engage with the discussion, said the analyst. "This is about Britain. It is a British question equally as it is an Irish matter."
