Dr. Joanne McEvoy:

I will highlight some findings from collaborative research undertaken by Professor Jennifer Todd and Dr. Don Walsh of University College Dublin, UCD, and me, supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs reconciliation fund and the Analysing and Researching Ireland North and South, ARINS, project, as well as from a more recent project undertaken by Professor Todd and me, supported by the Irish Research Council, IRC, and the shared island unit. This research sought to investigate more radical forms of participation in constitutional discussion where people would have a role in setting the agenda. Therefore, it would not simply involve the voicing of a preference on preset constitutional choices but asking people what would be important for them to talk about if they had the opportunity to set the agenda on the constitutional discussion. This aspect is especially important in the post-Brexit context and in the context in both jurisdictions of increasingly diverse populations.

We engaged with these diverse voices across these different projects, with two parallel projects initially in the North and South, and then a subsequent project. This engagement included focus groups with grassroots community organisations and interviews with community activists and politicians. Our research shows a strong interest in bread-and-butter socioeconomic issues and a surprisingly low concern with issues of institutional forms or models, for example, the debate around an integrated or devolved united Ireland. Our respondents wanted to participate in constitutional discussion, so it is not the case they were not keen to participate. They did want, however, to change the questions in that endeavour or at least the way into the discussion. We think this is an important finding for how things might proceed.

Participants said that conventional discussions are abstract and ideological and almost predetermine the outcome of an equally important process that should take place earlier before we get to talking about models. This earlier process, upstream in the process of constitutional discussion, should be very deliberative and evidence-based. There was also an emphasis across the different groups we engaged with and across these various projects on the need to avoid polarised debate. From this research, we have five suggestions.

First, there needs to be the provision of unbiased information. Participants frequently commented that nobody knows what a united Ireland might look like. Some highlighted the dangers of proceeding towards a referendum without proper information and without thinking through the consequences. Second, accountability needs to be built into the process. The discussion must have a purpose and an impact for citizens and not just lead to reports that are then, they fear, stuck in filing cabinets. Suggested ways to enhance accountability for our participants included mentions of citizens' assemblies, civic forums and academic research. Third, there needs to be far-reaching discussion and participation. Our research participants emphasised the need to take time, not to rush and to facilitate plenty of deliberation before any vote. There could, for example, be a network of local community-based deliberative events, small in scale, that joined up in some way. This would maximise public participation from diverse backgrounds across the island and in different localities. Fourth, there is a need for open-ended conversations around constitutional issues rather than divisive debates over binary options that might provoke or risk knee-jerk responses. Fifth, reshaping the agenda and process will mean quite radical public engagement but also accountability of policy decisions and changing inherent practices of policymaking. This will require multiple arenas of discussion, from the local to the all-island, and multiple channels of accountability and feedback between citizens and policy.