A decade after the UK stumbled into a rushed public vote that divided the country and unleashed disorder, a caution is issued from across the Irish Sea: it may occur once more.
Policymakers and electorate entered unwittingly Brexit and the similar may happen with a national vote on a unified Ireland, initiating disturbances for which no one is equipped.
That represents the warning from two prominent journalists from each side of the Irish border who have joined forces to analyse the pros and cons of Northern Ireland departing the UK to form a new state with the Republic of Ireland.
Political Institutions Not Ready
The author and columnist and Sam McBride, have concluded that the political establishments in Ireland and Britain are extremely unready for a possibly tense and seismic referendum.
"The crucial insight of Brexit hasn't been learned, which is that events can emerge unexpectedly and can gather momentum rapidly," O’Toole remarked. "I would suggest that the governmental framework of our islands remains extremely volatile."
New Title Seeks to Encourage Dialogue
The duo have analysed the political, economic and cultural rationales for any constitutional change in a volume, The Case For and Against Unification, published by the Irish Royal Irish Academy.
They aim to encourage dialogue on the matter with a roadshow of public talks that will lead them to Westminster in the coming weeks.
"What troubles everyone, or must worry every person, is the Brexit referendum of 2016," stated O’Toole.
"We should prevent a national vote on a thumbs up-thumbs down, unclear proposal whose consequences have not been clarified because then you end up with an highly polarised community where those defeated are unable to accept losing and the victorious side are uncertain exactly what it is that they have gained."
Legal Framework
Under the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland official is obliged to schedule a public vote on Irish unity if it appears likely that a majority would approve.
Nationalist parties and other pro-unification groups claim this point is approaching, and a non-profit called pro-unification advocates has built momentum, but authorities in Dublin and London and pro-UK factions play down the possibility, making it uncertain whether or when there will be a national vote.
Absence of Informed Dialogue
Partisan language for and against unification has obscured the lack of serious debate, stated the journalist.
"People tend to be supportive or opposed the notion but the concrete planning which might go beyond that to make it possible has largely not occurred. A great deal has gone on in universities but hardly any elected officials or campaigners want to engage even with the basics. To illustrate, what sort of state might be preferred? Unitary? Decentralised?"
Publication's Method
In the volume, none of the commentators endorses unity or the existing arrangement. Both authors two essays that strive for impartiality in laying out the argument for a united Ireland and the argument against, assembling economic and social statistics, historical precedents and constitutional models.
Debates range over identity markers, taxes, healthcare systems, pensions, national debt responsibilities and the danger of loyalist violence. The aim is to enlighten and encourage conversation.
"There is significant curiosity in the topic but there is still lacking a dialogue," commented O’Toole. "Discussion indicates an acceptance of the idea that there may exist valid points on each side."
Parallel Votes
A public vote in Northern Ireland would simultaneously prompt one in the republic, where citizens say they support unification but oppose paying higher taxes or adopting a alternative symbol to acknowledge unionists' British culture.
"Policymakers in Ireland does need to determine what the proposal from Irish nationalism is other than just declaring: 'We desire a united Ireland and we love you'," stated the commentator.
Possibility of Referendum
The journalist thinks a referendum in his lifetime is possible and that it could happen unexpectedly. "You could have just a reckless or a bad or a feckless government minister who declares: 'We should proceed and resolve it.'"
Both nationalists and unionists have credible, valid perspectives, he commented. "One side will win in this matter and the other side will eventually lose but both parties has possesses important lessons to gain from the opposing positions."
Call for More Extensive Debate
Westminster must engage with the discussion, said the analyst. "This concerns the United Kingdom. It's a UK matter just as much as it is an Irish matter."
