Ten years after the UK stumbled into a hasty public vote that divided the nation and unleashed turmoil, a advisory is issued from beyond the Irish Sea: it may occur once more.
The government and citizens drifted into Brexit and the identical may happen with a national vote on a unified Ireland, triggering disturbances for which nobody is prepared.
That is the message from two leading commentators from both sides of the Irish border who have teamed up to analyse the pros and cons of Northern Ireland leaving the UK to establish a different country with the Republic of Ireland.
Fintan O’Toole and Sam McBride, have found that the government bodies in Ireland and Britain are extremely unprepared for a potentially tense and transformative public vote.
"The crucial insight of Brexit hasn't been learned, which is that events can come out of the blue and can gain traction rapidly," the commentator stated. "I would suggest that the governmental framework of our archipelago remains extremely volatile."
The duo have studied the governmental, financial and societal reasons for any constitutional change in a book, For and Against a United Ireland, released by the Dublin-based Royal Irish Academy.
They hope to provoke discussion on the matter with a series of lectures that will take them to Westminster in the coming weeks.
"What concerns everyone, or ought to concern everybody, is the Brexit vote of 2016," said the analyst.
"We must avoid a national vote on a yes-no, vague proposition whose implications have not been spelled out because then you end up with an extraordinarily split population where people who have lost are resistant to losing and the victorious side are uncertain precisely what it is that they have gained."
Under the Good Friday agreement, the Northern Ireland secretary of state is obliged to schedule a public vote on Irish unification if it is indicated that a majority would vote in favour.
Sinn Féin and other pro-unification groups claim that moment is imminent, and a group named pro-unification advocates has built momentum, but both governments and unionists minimise the possibility, leaving it unclear if and when there could be a national vote.
Political rhetoric for and against unification has obscured the shortage of substantive discussion, said the journalist.
"Many are for or against the idea but the actual thinking which might go beyond that to make it possible has largely not occurred. A lot has occurred in universities but very few government figures or campaigners want to engage even with the essentials. For instance, what type of nation should be desired? Centralised? Decentralised?"
In the book, no writer endorses unity or the status quo. They composes two pieces that seek objectivity in detailing the case for a united Ireland and the argument opposing it, gathering financial and societal statistics, past examples and structural examples.
Arguments cover flags and symbols, duties, health services, pensions, national debt responsibilities and the risk of unionist unrest. The objective is to enlighten and provoke discussion.
"There's huge interest in the issue but there is still lacking a dialogue," commented O’Toole. "Dialogue suggests an acknowledgement of the idea that there might be reasonable perspectives on either side."
A public vote in Northern Ireland would additionally cause one in the republic, where voters report they support unification but reject greater financial contributions or implementing a different emblem to reflect pro-UK communities' British culture.
"The Irish government does need to determine what the offer from pro-unification movements is beyond just declaring: 'We want a united Ireland and we love you'," said O’Toole.
The journalist considers a referendum in his era is likely and that it could happen unexpectedly. "It is possible just a irresponsible or a bad or a incompetent official who states: 'Let us proceed and settle the matter.'"
Both pro-unification advocates and unionists have plausible, justified arguments, he said. "Somebody will win here and somebody will eventually not succeed but all factions has possesses important lessons to acquire from the alternative arguments."
Westminster should engage with the dialogue, urged the analyst. "This involves Britain. It's a British question as much as it is an Irish question."
Eva de Vries is a passionate book lover and local writer from Eindhoven.
