Ten years following the UK entered into a hurried referendum that polarised the nation and unleashed chaos, a caution emerges from beyond the Irish Sea: it may occur once more.
Authorities and voters drifted into Brexit and the same might transpire with a referendum on a united Ireland, initiating convulsions for which nobody is prepared.
That represents the warning from two leading writers from each side of the Irish border who have collaborated to analyse the pros and cons of Northern Ireland departing the UK to form a new state with the Republic of Ireland.
Administrative Establishments Unprepared
The author and columnist and Sam McBride, have concluded that the political establishments in Ireland and Britain are gravely unprepared for a possibly contentious and monumental public vote.
"The crucial insight of Brexit has gone unabsorbed, which is that stuff can come out of the blue and can gain traction swiftly," O’Toole stated. "In my opinion that the political architecture of our islands remains extremely volatile."
Book Publication Seeks to Provoke Discussion
The pair have analysed the political, economic and cultural rationales for any governmental shift in a publication, For and Against a United Ireland, released by the Irish Royal Irish Academy.
They hope to stir debate on the issue with a tour of public talks that will take them to Westminster in the coming weeks.
"What troubles everybody, or must worry everybody, is the Brexit referendum of 2016," stated the analyst.
"We should prevent a referendum on a binary, ambiguous question whose implications have remained undefined because then you land with an highly divided society where those defeated are unable to accept defeat and the people who have won are uncertain precisely what it is that they have achieved."
Legal Framework
Under the peace accord, the Northern Ireland official is obliged to schedule a public vote on Irish unification if it is indicated that a most voters would support.
Nationalist parties and other nationalists claim that moment is looming, and a non-profit named Ireland’s Future has garnered backing, but authorities in Dublin and London and unionists downplay the prospect, resulting in ambiguity whether or when there might be a national vote.
Absence of Substantive Discussion
Ideological statements for and against unity has masked the shortage of informed dialogue, said McBride.
"Many are for or against the concept but the detailed consideration which may surpass that to achieve it hasn't for the most part happened. A great deal has gone on in scholarly circles but hardly any politicians or campaigners want to engage even with the essentials. For instance, what sort of state should be desired? Centralised? Federal?"
Publication's Method
In the publication, none of the commentators supports unification or the status quo. Both composes two articles that aim for objectivity in laying out the rationale for a united Ireland and the argument against, marshalling financial and social figures, past examples and structural examples.
Discussions encompass national emblems, taxes, medical care, elderly benefits, sovereign debt obligations and the danger of unionist unrest. The aim is to inform and provoke discussion.
"There is significant curiosity in the topic but there has not yet occurred a dialogue," stated the writer. "Dialogue indicates an recognition of the notion that there may exist valid points on both sides."
Parallel Votes
A referendum in Northern Ireland would simultaneously prompt one in the republic, where voters report they prefer unification but oppose greater financial contributions or adopting a alternative symbol to recognise unionists' UK heritage.
"Policymakers in Ireland must work out what the proposal from Irish nationalism is aside from just declaring: 'We seek a unified Ireland and we value you'," remarked O’Toole.
Possibility of Public Vote
McBride believes a national vote in his lifetime is likely and that it may take place unexpectedly. "It is possible just a irresponsible or a poor or a negligent official who states: 'We should proceed and resolve it.'"
Each of the pro-unification advocates and unionists have plausible, justified arguments, he commented. "One side will succeed on this issue and the other side will eventually be defeated but both parties has possesses valuable insights to acquire from the opposing arguments."
Request for More Extensive Dialogue
Westminster needed to engage with the dialogue, urged O’Toole. "This concerns Britain. It is a UK matter just as much as it is an Irish question."
