A century after a flat tire, the north and south value unification

LondonAt the end of 2025, the centenary of the agreement that consolidated the partition of Ireland was commemorated, adopting as the permanent border the provisional line established in 1920, which resulted in twenty-six counties in the south and six in the north. To coincide with the anniversary, a book was published. For and Against in United Irelandby journalists and writers Sam McBride and Fintan O'Toole. The former, from the north, is the editor of The Belfast TelegraphThe second, from the south, a highly reputable columnist of The Irish Times

Both recently explained in London, before a group of foreign correspondents, including this reporter, why they have written a book that simultaneously defends two completely opposing positions on the possible Irish unification. In fact, neither of them is in favor of either unification or...status quo The exercise may seem paradoxical, but McBride and O'Toole have championed it as a way to understand a debate that is no longer speculative, but a "probable" horizon within a reasonable timeframe. "We are not politicians, nor activists, nor are we campaigning," McBride emphasized. "We are trying to achieve some objectivity through a very unneutral mechanism: being completely partisan, but in exactly opposite directions." McBride described the method with a legal metaphor: "I imagined myself as a criminal lawyer who has to construct the best possible argument for a client and then do the exact opposite." The goal, he said, is to demonstrate that "there are two very credible positions" and that Irish politics needs a less visceral culture of debate. "In Ireland, we have spent too much time tearing each other apart, or at the very least, calling each other names. Respecting your opponent, even if you believe they are completely wrong, is something the world is losing." O'Toole, for his part, championed the role of journalism in making understandable issues that often get bogged down in academia. "If there's one thing journalists do well, it's translating major debates into something comprehensible." He also noted the unique nature of the current political framework: since 1998, the United Kingdom has accepted in an international treaty that part of its territory can cease to be part of it peacefully. But this doesn't make reunification "simple." A difficult-to-calculate cost.

Deep down, the lessons of BrexitAnd the chaos unleashed in the United Kingdom following a referendum very poorly prepared by David Cameron's government looms over the text. Both agree that theGood Friday Agreement It profoundly transformed the concept of sovereignty and identity on the island. "It is one of the few cases in which a country rewrites its Constitution to address a territorial claim," O'Toole noted. The new text speaks of "uniting all those who share the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of identities and traditions."

A diversity that is even more pronounced today than it was three decades ago: the collapse of Catholicism as a national identifier, referendums on same-sex marriage and abortionAnd the fact that "20% of the Republic's population was born abroad." That's why O'Toole poses a question he considers central: "Who will decide in a future referendum?" Not just unionists and nationalists, but a growing segment of citizens with multiple identities: "My past is in Poland or Nigeria; tell me why unity is good for my children?"

The obstacles, O'Toole insists, are of an identity and economic nature. "There is still a majority—although it's a fluid situation—of Northern Irish citizens who do not want to be part of a unified Ireland." According to the most recent polls, only between 30 and 34% of the province's inhabitants agree. In the republic, supporters stand at over 60%. Furthermore, "Northern Ireland is very expensive to maintain… London sends between 11 and 12 billion pounds every year." The calculation of integrating this expenditure into the Irish budget is, he admits, "immense" and a factor that could even deter the most ardent supporters. McBride put figures to the debate, citing two academic schools of thought that reach diametrically opposed conclusions. "John D. Fitzgerald and Edgar L. Morgenroth speak of an additional 20 billion euros per year for twenty years," while other economists, such as John Doyle, reduce the bill to "around 2.5 billion annually, which would decrease over time." He concludes: "We don't know what the correct figure is. What we do know is that German reunification cost much more than initially anticipated." But money is not the only major unknown in the potential reunification. The future behavior of the United Kingdom is another. Fintan O'Toole warns that there are too many unknowns to take anything for granted. "The most hardline Irish nationalists, who hate Britain, are suddenly saying that London would behave magnificently. But it's not that simple." A British government could opt for a "long and generous" transition or, in a deteriorating political climate, for a "chaotic" break. "It's not impossible to imagine Nigel Farage as Prime Minister"He quipped.

There's no need to assume victory in the south

Despite the polls, both authors believe that the outcome of a potential referendum depends on more than just the north. "It's a mistake to assume that the Republic would vote in favor without hesitation," O'Toole warned. A unified state "wouldn't be the Republic of Ireland with six additional counties, but a new country."

McBride adds a more stark warning: security. "There are twice as many loyalist paramilitaries in peacetime as there are soldiers in the Irish army," he said. He recalls growing up "with the army in the streets and almost daily killings," and warns that the Irish state is not ready to deal with a resurgence of violence. "The Irish army cannot impose its will the way the British army could." He illustrates this fragility with a detail: "When we were writing the book, only Only one of the three naval vessels could operate, and it did not have its cannon in working order."

He also warns of the weight of myths of sacrifice, both in republicanism and unionism: "In Ireland, people who knew they would lose militarily decided to fight anyway. That is revered in both traditions." He adds that seeing Irish police patrolling Protestant neighborhoods in Belfast would be "a completely different prospect."

Nevertheless, McBride acknowledges that the "Brexit moment" triggered a sense of urgency in nationalism—"something unthinkable had just happened until now"—and that London is under no pressure to call a referendum. Without detailed preparation, he says, the debate remains in a state of limbo. no man's land sterile. O'Toole agrees that "2030 doesn't seem responsible" as a date for a referendum, and calls for a shared process between London and Dublin to avoid "repeating Brexit."

Despite all the caution, both authors conclude that the debate is now inevitable and that it must be faced without naiveté or dogma. "I myself wouldn't have written this book a few years ago; it would have seemed ridiculous," admits McBride. But now, he emphasizes, the conversation is open, urgent, and, above all, "necessarily gradual and planned."