Ten years after the UK stumbled into a rushed public vote that polarised the country and unleashed chaos, a warning is issued from across the Irish Sea: it may occur once more.
The government and voters sleepwalked into Brexit and the same might transpire with a referendum on a united Ireland, sparking convulsions for which nobody is ready.
That conveys the caution from two prominent writers from both sides of the Irish border who have collaborated to scrutinise the pros and cons of Northern Ireland leaving the UK to create a new state with the Republic of Ireland.
Governmental Establishments Ill-Equipped
The author and columnist and Sam McBride, have determined that the administrative systems in Ireland and Britain are gravely unprepared for a potentially contentious and seismic public vote.
"The crucial insight of Brexit remains unheeded, which is that events can arise suddenly and can gain traction swiftly," the commentator said. "I would suggest that the political architecture of our region remains highly fragile."
Released Volume Aims to Stir Debate
The pair have analysed the governmental, economic and cultural reasons for any structural alteration in a volume, The Case For and Against Unification, published by the Dublin-based Royal Irish Academy.
They aim to stir debate on the issue with a tour of public talks that will lead them to Westminster soon.
"What haunts all parties, or should haunt every person, is the Brexit referendum of 2016," commented the analyst.
"We should prevent a national vote on a binary, vague proposition whose consequences have remained undefined because then you end up with an extraordinarily polarised community where the losing side are resistant to losing and the people who have won are uncertain quite what it is that they have won."
Constitutional Provision
Under the peace accord, the Northern Ireland secretary of state is obliged to schedule a referendum on Irish unification if it appears likely that a majority would support.
Sinn Féin and other pro-unification groups argue such a time is looming, and a non-profit called pro-unification advocates has built momentum, but both governments and unionists play down the prospect, making it uncertain whether or when there will be a national vote.
Lack of Serious Debate
Political rhetoric for and against unity has hidden the lack of substantive discussion, said McBride.
"People tend to be for or against the concept but the concrete planning which could extend past that to realise it has largely not occurred. A lot has occurred in universities but scarcely any politicians or activists want to engage with even the basics. As an example, which kind of country would you want? Unitary? Federal?"
Publication's Method
In the publication, neither author endorses unity or the existing arrangement. Each writes two articles that seek impartiality in detailing the argument for a unified Ireland and the rationale opposing it, assembling financial and social figures, past examples and governmental frameworks.
Debates encompass flags and symbols, taxes, healthcare systems, retirement funds, national debt responsibilities and the danger of unionist unrest. The objective is to inform and provoke dialogue.
"There is significant curiosity in the topic but there has not yet occurred a debate," stated the writer. "Discussion implies an recognition of the concept that there might be reasonable perspectives on either side."
Parallel Votes
A referendum in Northern Ireland would also trigger one in the Republic of Ireland, where citizens claim they support unity but reject increased taxation or implementing a new flag to reflect unionists' UK heritage.
"Authorities in Dublin should establish what the plan from Irish nationalism is beyond just stating: 'We seek a united Ireland and we welcome you'," stated O’Toole.
Possibility of Public Vote
The journalist believes a national vote in his era is possible and that it might occur suddenly. "There might be just a irresponsible or a bad or a incompetent official who says: 'Let's just do this and resolve it.'"
Each of the nationalists and unionists have plausible, legitimate arguments, he said. "One side will succeed on this issue and the other side will ultimately be defeated but each side has got something to acquire from the opposing viewpoints."
Request for Wider Dialogue
Westminster needed to engage with the dialogue, said O’Toole. "This is about your state. It's a British issue just as much as it is an Irish issue."
