A decade after the UK stumbled into a rushed referendum that split the country and unleashed disorder, a warning is issued from across the Irish Sea: it could happen again.
Policymakers and voters sleepwalked into Brexit and the same could occur with a referendum on a unified Ireland, sparking convulsions for which nobody is prepared.
That conveys the caution from two prominent commentators from both sides of the Irish border who have teamed up to scrutinise the advantages and disadvantages of Northern Ireland departing the UK to form a new state with the Republic of Ireland.
Fintan O’Toole and The Northern Ireland editor, have concluded that the political establishments in Ireland and Britain are extremely unprepared for a possibly fraught and monumental public vote.
"The crucial insight of Brexit has gone unabsorbed, which is that developments can arise suddenly and can gain traction swiftly," O’Toole said. "I would suggest that the governmental framework of our region remains highly fragile."
The pair have studied the governmental, financial and cultural rationales for any constitutional change in a book, The Case For and Against Unification, issued by the Irish Royal Irish Academy.
They aim to stir debate on the topic with a series of speaking events that will take them to Westminster soon.
"What troubles everyone, or should haunt every person, is the Brexit referendum of 2016," stated O’Toole.
"We do not want a national vote on a binary, unclear proposal whose consequences have not been spelled out because then you land with an highly polarised community where those defeated are unable to accept losing and the people who have won don't know precisely what it is that they have gained."
Under the Belfast Agreement, the Northern Ireland secretary of state is obliged to schedule a referendum on Irish unity if it seems probable that a majority would vote in favour.
Sinn Féin and other nationalists say that moment is imminent, and a organisation called Ireland’s Future has built momentum, but both governments and unionists minimise the prospect, making it uncertain if and when there might be a referendum.
Ideological statements supporting and opposing unification has masked the lack of serious debate, noted McBride.
"People tend to be supportive or opposed the concept but the detailed consideration which could extend past that to achieve it hasn't for the most part happened. A lot has gone on in scholarly circles but hardly any government figures or campaigners want to engage even with the basics. For instance, which kind of country would you want? Unitary? Federal?"
In the book, no writer advocates unification or the current situation. They composes two pieces that strive for objectivity in laying out the argument for a united Ireland and the case against, marshalling economic and societal statistics, historical precedents and constitutional models.
Discussions encompass flags and symbols, taxes, medical care, pensions, sovereign debt obligations and the danger of pro-UK militancy. The objective is to inform and provoke discussion.
"Considerable attention exists in the subject but there has not yet occurred a debate," commented O’Toole. "Dialogue indicates an acceptance of the idea that there could be reasonable perspectives on either side."
A public vote in Northern Ireland would simultaneously prompt one in the Republic of Ireland, where voters say they prefer unification but refuse paying higher taxes or implementing a different emblem to reflect pro-UK communities' British identity.
"Authorities in Dublin must work out what the plan from Irish nationalism is beyond just stating: 'We want a united Ireland and we welcome you'," stated O’Toole.
The journalist thinks a national vote in his era is possible and that it may take place abruptly. "There might be just a mad or a bad or a incompetent official who states: 'Let's just do this and settle the matter.'"
Both pro-unification advocates and pro-UK supporters have reasonable, legitimate arguments, he said. "One side will succeed in this matter and somebody will eventually be defeated but each side has has something to gain from the opposing viewpoints."
Westminster should engage with the debate, stated the analyst. "This involves the United Kingdom. It's a British question equally as it is an Irish matter."
A seasoned financial analyst with over a decade of experience in global markets and trading strategies.
Joseph Anderson
Joseph Anderson