Ten years following the UK stumbled into a hasty public vote that split the country and caused disorder, a warning emerges from across the Irish Sea: it could happen again.
Policymakers and voters drifted into Brexit and the identical might transpire with a national vote on a united Ireland, initiating disturbances for which nobody is equipped.
That conveys the caution from two prominent journalists from each side of the Irish border who have collaborated to examine the benefits and drawbacks of Northern Ireland departing the UK to form a different country with the Republic of Ireland.
Administrative Establishments Ill-Equipped
The author and columnist and The Northern Ireland editor, have found that the political establishments in Ireland and Britain are woefully ill-prepared for a potentially contentious and monumental public vote.
"The key takeaway of Brexit remains unheeded, which is that events can emerge unexpectedly and can gain traction swiftly," O’Toole said. "It is my view that the governmental framework of our archipelago remains highly fragile."
New Title Seeks to Provoke Discussion
The duo have examined the political, economic and cultural rationales for any governmental shift in a volume, The Case For and Against Unification, released by the Dublin-based Royal Irish Academy.
They hope to provoke discussion on the topic with a tour of public talks that will take them to Westminster early next month.
"What concerns all parties, or must worry every person, is the Brexit vote of 2016," said O’Toole.
"We should prevent a referendum on a binary, ambiguous question whose implications have remained undefined because then you end up with an extraordinarily polarised community where those defeated are resistant to defeat and the those successful lack clarity exactly what it is that they have achieved."
Legal Framework
Under the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland government minister must arrange a public vote on Irish unity if it appears likely that a most voters would approve.
Sinn Féin and other pro-unification groups argue such a time is imminent, and a non-profit named Ireland’s Future has rallied support, but both governments and pro-UK factions downplay the prospect, resulting in ambiguity if and when there will be a national vote.
Insufficient Informed Dialogue
Political rhetoric for and against unity has hidden the lack of informed dialogue, said the journalist.
"Many are for or against the idea but the actual thinking which might go beyond that to make it possible is mostly absent. Much has gone on in scholarly circles but scarcely any politicians or advocates want to engage with the basics. For instance, what sort of state might be preferred? Unitary? Federal?"
Publication's Method
In the volume, none of the commentators supports unification or the status quo. Each composes two pieces that seek neutrality in laying out the case for a united Ireland and the rationale against, assembling financial and social figures, historical precedents and structural examples.
Arguments cover identity markers, duties, medical care, elderly benefits, public liabilities and the threat of loyalist violence. The objective is to educate and encourage dialogue.
"There's huge interest in the issue but there is still lacking a dialogue," stated O’Toole. "Dialogue indicates an acknowledgement of the notion that there might be valid points on each side."
Simultaneous Plebiscites
A referendum in Northern Ireland would simultaneously prompt one in the republic, where citizens report they support unification but reject greater financial contributions or implementing a different emblem to reflect pro-UK communities' British identity.
"The Irish government should determine what the proposal from Irish nationalism is beyond just declaring: 'We seek a unified Ireland and we love you'," said O’Toole.
Probability of Public Vote
The journalist thinks a national vote in his era is possible and that it might occur suddenly. "It is possible just a mad or a ill-advised or a negligent secretary of state who says: 'We should proceed and settle the matter.'"
Each of the pro-unification advocates and unionists have plausible, legitimate arguments, he said. "One side will prevail on this issue and somebody will in the end lose but both parties has got valuable insights to acquire from the alternative arguments."
Request for Broader Dialogue
Westminster needed to join the debate, stated the analyst. "This is about your state. It's a British question as much as it is an Irish question."
