Ten years after the UK embarked on a rushed public vote that split the nation and caused chaos, a advisory emerges from across the Irish Sea: it could happen again.
The government and citizens sleepwalked into Brexit and the similar may happen with a national vote on a unified Ireland, sparking convulsions for which nobody is prepared.
That conveys the caution from two prominent writers from both sides of the Irish border who have collaborated to scrutinise the benefits and drawbacks of Northern Ireland leaving the UK to establish a fresh nation with the Republic of Ireland.
Political Institutions Ill-Equipped
The author and columnist and Sam McBride, have found that the political establishments in Ireland and Britain are gravely ill-prepared for a possibly fraught and seismic public vote.
"The lesson of Brexit has gone unabsorbed, which is that stuff can arise suddenly and can build support rapidly," the commentator stated. "I would suggest that the institutional structure of our region remains extremely volatile."
New Title Seeks to Stir Debate
The team have analysed the political, financial and societal rationales for any governmental shift in a publication, For and Against a United Ireland, published by the Dublin-based Royal Irish Academy.
They aim to encourage dialogue on the issue with a series of speaking events that will lead them to Westminster in the coming weeks.
"What concerns all parties, or should haunt all involved, is the Brexit vote of 2016," commented O’Toole.
"We do not want a national vote on a binary, ambiguous question whose results have remained undefined because then you end up with an extraordinarily divided society where those defeated are resistant to losing and the people who have won are uncertain precisely what it is that they have won."
Governmental Mandate
Under the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland official is obliged to schedule a public vote on Irish unity if it is indicated that a majority would support.
Sinn Féin and other nationalists argue this point is looming, and a non-profit called pro-unification advocates has garnered backing, but both governments and unionists downplay the possibility, leaving it unclear whether or when there could be a national vote.
Insufficient Serious Debate
Political rhetoric supporting and opposing unification has masked the absence of informed dialogue, stated McBride.
"Individuals are often for or against the idea but the detailed consideration which could extend past that to realise it has largely not occurred. A lot has occurred in academia but scarcely any politicians or campaigners want to engage with the essentials. For instance, what type of nation might be preferred? Unitary? Federal?"
Book's Approach
In the publication, neither author advocates unification or the existing arrangement. Both writes two articles that seek neutrality in laying out the case for a united Ireland and the argument opposing it, assembling economic and societal figures, past examples and structural examples.
Discussions cover flags and symbols, levies, healthcare systems, pensions, national debt responsibilities and the risk of unionist unrest. The aim is to educate and stimulate dialogue.
"There is significant curiosity in the topic but there is still lacking a discussion," commented the writer. "Discussion suggests an acceptance of the idea that there may exist valid points on either side."
Parallel Votes
A public vote in Northern Ireland would simultaneously prompt one in the Republic of Ireland, where voters report they favour unification but oppose greater financial contributions or implementing a different emblem to acknowledge unionists' British culture.
"Authorities in Dublin should establish what the offer from pro-unification movements is other than just saying: 'We desire a united Ireland and we value you'," remarked the commentator.
Possibility of Referendum
McBride considers a national vote in his lifetime is likely and that it might occur unexpectedly. "There might be just a mad or a ill-advised or a incompetent official who says: 'Let us proceed and settle the matter.'"
Both nationalists and unionists have reasonable, legitimate points, he said. "Somebody will succeed here and somebody will ultimately be defeated but all factions has has something to acquire from the other's arguments."
Request for Wider Dialogue
Westminster needed to participate in the dialogue, said O’Toole. "This is about Britain. It's a British question equally as it is an Irish question."