🔗 Share this article

Ten years after the UK embarked on a hasty public vote that split the country and unleashed chaos, a warning is issued from beyond the Irish Sea: it could happen again.

The government and citizens sleepwalked into Brexit and the identical may happen with a referendum on a united Ireland, initiating convulsions for which nobody is equipped.

That represents the warning from two prominent commentators from either side of the Irish border who have teamed up to scrutinise the pros and cons of Northern Ireland exiting the UK to form a fresh nation with the Republic of Ireland.

Governmental Institutions Unprepared

Fintan O’Toole and The Northern Ireland editor, have found that the administrative systems in Ireland and Britain are gravely unprepared for a potentially contentious and seismic referendum.

"The crucial insight of Brexit remains unheeded, which is that developments can emerge unexpectedly and can build support very quickly," O’Toole remarked. "I would suggest that the political architecture of our islands remains highly fragile."

New Title Seeks to Encourage Dialogue

The team have studied the governmental, economic and societal arguments for any structural alteration in a volume, For and Against a United Ireland, issued by the Dublin-based Royal Irish Academy.

They hope to provoke discussion on the matter with a series of public talks that will lead them to Westminster in the coming weeks.

"What concerns everybody, or should haunt everybody, is the Brexit referendum of 2016," commented the analyst.

"We should prevent a referendum on a yes-no, ambiguous question whose consequences have not been clarified because then you find yourself with an highly polarised community where the losing side are unable to accept defeat and the victorious side don't know quite what it is that they have achieved."

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 nationalists argue that moment 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 prospect, leaving it unclear when or if there could be a national vote.

Insufficient Serious Debate

Ideological statements for and against unification has obscured the shortage of serious debate, noted the journalist.

"Individuals are often supportive or opposed the notion but the detailed consideration which might go beyond that to achieve it has largely not occurred. A great deal has occurred in academia but scarcely any politicians or activists want to engage with even the basics. As an example, which kind of country would you want? Centralised? Federal?"

Publication's Method

In the volume, neither author endorses unification or the status quo. Each composes two pieces that aim for neutrality in presenting the rationale for a united Ireland and the case against, marshalling financial and societal figures, historical precedents and constitutional models.

Debates cover national emblems, levies, medical care, pensions, national debt responsibilities and the threat of pro-UK militancy. The goal is to enlighten and encourage discussion.

"Considerable attention exists in the topic but there has not yet occurred a debate," said O’Toole. "Debate suggests an acceptance of the concept that there could be valid points on both sides."

Simultaneous Plebiscites

A public vote in Northern Ireland would also trigger one in the republic, where the electorate claim they prefer unity but oppose increased taxation or implementing a alternative symbol to recognise unionists' British identity.

"Authorities in Dublin does need to establish what the proposal from Irish nationalism is beyond just stating: 'We seek a united Ireland and we welcome you'," said the commentator.

Likelihood of Public Vote

The journalist thinks a referendum in his lifetime is probable and that it may take place unexpectedly. "It is possible just a reckless or a poor or a negligent secretary of state who declares: 'We should proceed and settle the matter.'"

Each of the pro-unification advocates and unionists have credible, justified perspectives, he said. "One side will succeed in this matter and somebody will in the end not succeed but each side has got something to gain from the opposing arguments."

Request for More Extensive Discussion

Westminster must engage with the discussion, stated O’Toole. "This is about Britain. It's a British question equally as it is an Irish issue."