For and Against a United Ireland

by Fintan O'Toole, Sam McBride

The prospect of Irish unification is now stronger than at any point since partition in 1921. Voters on both sides of the Irish border may soon have to confront for themselves what the answer to a referendum question would mean - for themselves, for their neighbours, and for their society.

Journalists Fintan O'Toole and Sam McBride examine the strongest arguments for and against a united Ireland. What do the words 'united Ireland' even mean? Would it be better for Northern Ireland? Would it improve lives in the Republic of Ireland? And could it be brought about without bloodshed?

O'Toole and McBride each argue the case for and against unity, questioning received wisdom and bringing fresh thinking to one of Ireland's most intractable questions.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Irish Literature, Ireland, History, Political Science

Paperback

First published October 20, 2025

About the author

Fintan O'Toole is a columnist, assistant editor and drama critic for The Irish Times. O'Toole was born in Dublin and was partly educated at University College Dublin. He has written for the Irish Times since 1988 and was drama critic for the New York Daily News from 1997 to 2001. He is a literary critic, historical writer and political commentator, with generally left-wing views. He was and continues to be a strong critic of corruption in Irish politics, in both the Haughey era and continuing to the present.

O'Toole has criticised what he sees as negative attitudes towards immigration in Ireland, the state of Ireland's public services, growing inequality during Ireland's economic boom, the Iraq War and the American military's use of Shannon Airport, among many other issues. In 2006, he spent six months in China reporting for The Irish Times. In his weekly columns in The Irish Times, O'Toole opposed the IRA's campaign during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fintan_O...

Reviews

[Michael Burke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fleshing Out "The Dream"

As an Irish American with a Catholic background, I have always held an unshakeable belief in a unified Ireland. While this sentiment persists, reading this book has brought to light just how complicated and challenging achieving that goal is.

“For and Against a United Ireland,” by Fintan O’Toole (nationalist) and Sam McBride (unionist), is a concise, nonpartisan contribution to the unification debate. This unique book features each journalist independently writing a chapter for and against a united Ireland, moving the discussion beyond tribalism. The work focuses on practical, complex, and financial implications, examining issues like harmonizing public services, financial costs (UK subvention, debt, taxation), security, and identity.

Right away, Fintan O'Toole's opening chapter, "The Case Against a United Ireland," threw me for a loop. It introduces a recurring theme in the book: while the emotion and deeply held traditions would drive a vote on unification, the practical implications of merging the two entities are significant. Both authors ultimately agree that the priority should be improving public services before any border poll, and that a great deal of work is required for unification to succeed.

“For and Against a United Ireland” is a refreshing reality check to the “Irish dream.” Shortlisted for awards like An Post’s Best Irish-Published Book of 2025, this book is a serious primer for engaging with the prospect of unification.

Thank you to the University of Notre Dame Press and Edelweiss Plus for providing an advance reader copy in exchange for an honest review. Sláinte!

[Colleen Browne · Rating 5 out of 5]

The drive to bring about the reunification of Ireland has been an issue since the British government first broke it up in the Anglo-Irish government in 1922. It has been a source of bitter debate and an enormous amount of bloodshed, culminating in the Troubles, which lasted roughly from 1969 to 1998 at which time the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. I lived in the South of Ireland for a long time during which the Troubles were ongoing and when the violence was finally brought under control. My husband, children, and I frequently traveled to the North at that time, which was unusual for people in that part of Ireland and is apparently still the case.

Since the aforementioned agreement, reuniting the Six Counties with the South has been a possibility, written into its provisions. I have always been a proponent of reunification, beginning way back in the early 80's when I marched in front of the British Embassy in New York City during the Hunger Strikes. When it became a possibility, I was encouraged that it would finally happen after 800 years of Britain's interference in the country. To be an independent 32-county Ireland has been the desire of all nationalists. It is, therefore, appropriate that a book about what that would actually mean should be written.

Finton O'Toole, a Southerner, and Sam McBride, a Northerner, have undertaken this task. Each has written a section supporting reunification and a section opposing it, a fairminded undertaking in my opinion. They state from the beginning that their purpose is not to push any particular position but rather to state the facts from either side and allow the public to decide for themselves. They have done a very good job. It is far more complicated than most of us might have imagined. Attempting to lay out the specific minertia that would be required, and it would not be an easy task. For example, the issue of subsidies provided by the British government to civil servants in the North would create a great deal of debate. Before the Troubles, the North was the more affluent area, but that has changed. The Republic has become a wealthy country and one of the most egalitarian in the world, while the North has suffered. But any agreement would have to entail bringing the Six Counties onto a par with the South would be complex and not easily done.

And of course, any discussion of reunification would have to examine the possibility of the outbreak of violence. Both authors agree that the greatest threat of violence would be from Unionists (Protestants). That said, there is great hope that if violence did occur, it would be less sectarian and more academic and would involve, for example, each side possibly giving up the symbols that have meant a great deal to them. Would the South be willing to give up a beloved national anthem and the Tri-Colour? And would the North be willing to give up the British flag and other symbols of unionism? I am including very little in the way of the details that would have to be worked out.

As far as the authors themselves are concerned, O'Toole's analysis is superior to McBride's. His research is deeper and more accurate. I found several inaccuracies and mis-statements in McBride's work. He implies, for example, that after the Plantations, conditions were peaceful and calm. That is inaccurate. When dealing with the EU, he argues that Britain has been nudging closer to re-joining the EU and would probably rejoin. The only problem with that is that the EU doesn't want them back. The South is a devoted part of the EU. That could be another nightmare. Both concede that if a border referendum were held, it would be necessary for the electorate would need to educate themselves about what it would entail. Although there is much I haven't mentioned here, there are certainly other aspects that aren't covered in the book that would need to be looked at. The worst thing would be for it to be done in the manner of the Brexit vote, where most Brits did not understand what they were voting for. That would almost certainly result in widespread violence. I highly recommend the book.

The book is thoughtful and well-researched and brings freshness to the issue.

[ericas.library · Rating 4 out of 5]

For and Against a United Ireland is a joint book by two authors, one who grew up in Northern Ireland in a broadly unionist environment, and one in the Republic of Ireland in a broadly nationalist one. The book has just four chapters, the case for a united Ireland, and the case against one, both perspectives written by each author.

I went into this book with my own opinions (as most of us in Ireland would), and to be honest I’ve come out more unsure of my stance now that I’ve finished. The authors do a great job of really laying out the nuances of each case, and the different variations and possibilities of what a united Ireland might look like. But ultimately, no one knows what it would be like unless our governments really start to lay out the exact layout of the land in a post-united Ireland for all aspects of society, including healthcare, education, transport, national security, among many other things.

If and when the conversation ultimately comes to the forefront of Irish politics, I will definitely come back to this book for the facts and considerations it lays out.

[Killian · Rating 4 out of 5]

In case nobody knows: there's a lot to discuss here. And while at times the book can be a little too academic, it's a worthwhile read for both decideds and undecideds

[Peter McLaughlin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short and punchy. McBride’s chapters are better than O’Toole’s. The elephant in the room, the thing I kept thinking about, was Fergus’ question: ‘Is Northern Ireland a failed state?’ McBride especially knows more than most the dysfunction of our institutions, but there was little focus on institutional reform either in the Union or in a new Republic: lots on schools, healthcare, pensions, taxation and fiscal policy; but political and civil service reform, representation, ministerial power, etc. are mostly just referred to quickly, and usually under the rubric of a unitary vs devolved United Ireland. This is understandable based on the topics that will probably be on most swing voters’ minds in a future border poll. But without solid political institutions, even the best planning in the world won’t implement the kind of pension / health / tax / school systems that voters want. This might be thought to push towards change, and thus a United Ireland, but I’m increasingly unsure of that logic. Anyway: these kinds of questions clearly informed the writing of the book, especially McBride’s chapters, but don’t surface often enough.

[knittywoo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very thought provoking and raised several challenges/opportunities I hadn’t thought of. An interesting format for both journalists to argue both sides and challenge their own biases. As a result it was occasionally repetitive which loses it a star.

[Anya · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is written by two very different journalists, which both describe the pros and cons for a united ireland. One of the journalists does this eloquently with clear logical arguments founded on fact. A pleasure to listen to, and well researched. What deeply upset me was that the journalist from Northern Ireland gave arguments pro and con which we based on what “people” think, second guessing responses and a lot of heresy instead of fact. Some of the arguments were frankly quite childish and unreasonable. This upset me because of growing up
In Northern Ireland where the politics are not based on what people need and want but based on perceived blame and difficulties back and forth, based on ideas and emotions instead of logically making plans and moving forward. The same echoes of this dysfunction I still hear here in this book. Of course it is complicated, but there are always solution to things like pensions, without having to dramatise this with emotions and predicting disaster and assuming the emotion difficulties people will perceive. He uses many words, some clever, and many over the top instead of clear causing his arguments to sound like an overly dramatic, exaggerated emotional illogical mess. I also don’t understand why he continues to mention “the status quo” but pronounces it “status co”. And having to pay tolls if you need to drive to Cork? How can that be a serious problem of a united Ireland?! He also in all seriousness makes arguments like losing “radio 1 breakfast and question time” on the bbc would feel like tuning in to American networks? How can this small mindedness really be taken seriously? Very frustrating. It sounds mostly like fear of the unknown and fear of change, with a bit of catastrophic thinking in the mix.
Saying that, listening to this book made me realise that a united Ireland is much more complicated that I realised (important to hear about all the issues to think about) and made me unfortunately realise how backwards Northern Ireland still is in many ways, mostly caused by this small way of thinking, and a partly
Isolated society. The point that Ireland, which has come so far in the last 30 years, may not want Northern Ireland in its country, and this is unfortunately the real issue of a united Ireland in my opinion.

[Callum Booth-Lewis · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was easy to read and I admire the intention. The intro and conclusion made some really good points about the need to tackle what is instinctively a very emotive debate with a sense of pragmatism and honesty.
However, 3 out of 4 of the essays were pretty badly written (the exception being O'Toole's "for" essay). Quite a few logical leaps and arguments that didn't really follow.
It's seems (though I may be wrong) pretty clear what each author's actual opinion is, and they seem to have a hard time when writing from a viewpoint that doesn't match their own. I'm also not convinced that this format is the clearest way to present the arguments - the structure makes it hard to compare arguments against each other.

[Kate H]

really liked this beyond the traditionally emotional evocations of unionism/nationalism what could a United ireland look like versus the potential for NI within the Union

the conclusion that it is a privilege to be sat at a time of peace making a democratic choice between belonging to either of these two nations was an admirably optimistic conclusion

[Robert Sheehan · Rating 2 out of 5]

4 essays, 2 arguing against unity, 2 arguing for unity. The arguments against are at least grounded in fact. The arguments for are based on pure wishful thinking. Proper utopian idealism. Anyone who thinks unity is going to happen within 10 years is completely deluded.

There is no upside to unity for the Republic. The cost is too high, the amount of change required on both sides is too much, and neither side has even started thinking about making the necessary changes. Ireland has lots to lose for very little gain.

[Neil Kenealy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the most serious, useful books yet written about the prospect of a border poll and Irish unity.
The structure is deceptively simple and extremely effective. Two white, male journalists — one broadly nationalist (Fintan O’Toole), one broadly unionist (Sam McBride) — each begin by making the case against what would normally be assumed to be their own tribal position. That choice alone sets the tone: this is a book that resists slogans, certainty, and easy alignment. Then they both give the opposite side of the
The context matters here.
Brexit — a disaster imposed on Northern Ireland against its will — and the unresolved legacy of the Troubles make the question of a border poll no longer theoretical. It is not hard to imagine a “mad or bad” Secretary of State calling one. The authors are clear that circumstances change: economic assumptions that once underpinned partition are now irrelevant. History cannot simply be replayed.

The case against unity (Fintan O’Toole):
O’Toole is at his most interesting when he turns traditional southern nationalist arguments against unity back on themselves. An island, he reminds us, is not necessarily a natural political unit. He draws on examples of divided islands elsewhere (notably omitting Cyprus) and points out that the only period when Ireland was fully united was under English and British rule.
He is unsparing about the southern state after partition: a society that prioritised Catholic identity over reunification. The Constitution’s preamble invoking God, and the outsized influence of the Jesuits, loom large. This is not ancient history; it shapes contemporary institutions.
O’Toole asks the questions that could derail any referendum:
Would there be violence? Even a small number of disgruntled opponents could attempt to destabilise a new state.
What would the new Ireland actually look like? A devolved Northern Ireland like Wales? Would voters see a concrete plan beforehand, unlike Brexit?
What about policing — armed or unarmed?
Would a Supreme Court be representative of both identities?
The flag, the anthem?
Polling suggests many southerners imagine unity as simply absorbing “the six counties,” without reckoning with debt, pensions, welfare, or taxation. Health is especially fraught: many in the North believe the NHS is superior, even as outcomes like life expectancy lag. Education, north and south, remains fragmented and dominated by religious institutions.
His conclusion is sobering: the Republic would need to reform and integrate its own healthcare and education systems before it could credibly integrate Northern Ireland. There is a long journey ahead — and a real risk of violence along the way. Faced with so many unanswered questions, many voters in the Republic might default to “no” or abstention.

The case for unity (Sam McBride):
McBride’s pro-unity case is pragmatic rather than romantic. If institutions like Stormont and the PSNI were retained, the transition could be manageable. MPs could go to Dublin rather than London. Crucially, Dublin would care more about Northern Ireland than Britain does — and British indifference, he argues, is not in unionists’ interests.
He is optimistic about integrating healthcare and education, and sees EU re-entry as straightforward, given Northern Ireland’s Remain vote. The Republic is far wealthier than it once was and is moving further in that direction. A united Ireland would be larger than countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland, or Singapore — all perfectly viable states.
There’s also a strong argument against over-centralisation: Belfast as a second city could help loosen Dublin’s gravitational pull.

The case for unity (Fintan O’Toole):
When O’Toole turns to the argument pro United Ireland, he grounds it in demographic change. Catholics now barely outnumber Protestants — a far cry from 1921. He draws extensively on polling to show how attitudes in the South have shifted, including openness to continued devolution after a British handover.
Symbols — flag, anthem, emblems — could be negotiated long before any vote. Replacing the tricolour would not require banning it; the same applies to the anthem. Pluralism, not erasure, is the key. He sees unity as an opportunity for renewal in the South: constitutional change, decentralisation, and the inclusion of Belfast.
Economically, he argues that the costs of unification would be offset by increased activity across the island — the whole becoming greater than the sum of its parts. Technical integration problems pale beside the deeper political challenge of reconciling identities. History is a warning: in 1968, few foresaw the Troubles.
The case against unity (Sam McBride)
McBride’s counter-case is rooted in stability. The UVF, he notes starkly, has more members under arms than the Irish army. Many of his arguments amount to a defence of the status quo — especially appealing to southern voters who are doing fine without the North and may not wish to “upset the apple cart.”
Why the book works
The alternating, uninterrupted arguments are a strength. Each case is given full force, without immediate rebuttal. It’s engaging, well edited, and remarkably accessible. This would be an excellent primer for schools, newcomers to the island, and anyone trying to understand how Ireland actually works.
It’s also rich in detail. One striking fact: in 1925 the Free State was absolved of its share of UK national debt in return for accepting the border as proposed by the Boundary Commission.
The postscript is the book’s quiet masterstroke. It reminds us that preparing for a border poll does not predetermine its outcome. Improving health services, transport, education, and infrastructure makes life better regardless of the constitutional future. And before “yes” or “no,” there is “maybe” — a growing cohort of voters unmoved by tribal slogans, demanding hard answers grounded in reality. By the time any poll is held, many voters will not identify with traditional nationalist or unionist categories at all.
I attended a live discussion of the book in November 2025, with polls taken before and after. Both speakers were persuasive — to both sides. Yet the undecided shifted towards “no,” shaken by the sheer complexity of integration.
This book deserves to stay in print as we move closer to a border poll. It could even be updated every five years. Should a summary be available to every voter?
Final thought and extract from the book: We have been given peace and time to consider this decision carefully. History is usually far less generous with such gifts.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

While some of the arguements are underdeveloped and lack the necessary depth and complexity, this is still a thoughtful and serious attempt to engage with the issues of a future border poll and Irish unity. O'Toole and McBride's attention is rightfully (and refreshingly for the issue) focused on practical concerns - education, health, economics, social cohesion, the spector of violence, etc... - instead of the well wore platitudes and appeals to emotion that so often define this debate in both unionist and nationalist camps. This focus coupled with the structure (which allows for mature and balanced weighing of the opportunities and obstacles, pitfalls and promises of unification, as it shows that there are reasonable and deeply compelling arguements from both positions) give the book a refreshingly insightful edge.

[Simon Howard · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book comprised four essays: two from Fintan O’Toole of the Irish Times, and two from Sam McBride of the Belfast Telegraph, where they each set out the best case - as they see it - ‘for’ and ‘against’ a United Ireland.

I felt like I learned quite a lot from reading this: the scale of the subsidy which Northern Ireland receives from the rest of the UK, the level of poverty in Northern Ireland, and the relative wealth of the Republic. It also provided a helpful reminder of the history of the island, much of which I’m sure I knew once, but was possibly not at the front of my mind.

But I think the main feeling the book gave me was one of slight despondency. All four essays were eloquent and well-argued, but all seemed to assume that:
1. People vote on the basis of careful consideration of facts.
2. Politicians are motivated to ensure that the public understands the issues and have the skills to make that happen.
3. The public sector is capable of delivering enormous complex programmes with efficiency and attention to detail.
Perhaps I’m just cynical, but I don’t think any of those three are true in the UK or Ireland today.

The lesson of the UK’s referendum on continued membership of the EU was surely that:
1. Many politicians are happy to mislead when it is expedient for their career, and this is not necessarily a barrier to political success.
2. Many politicians would prefer to attack other politicians rather than opposing ideas, and much of the media prefers covering the soap opera to explaining the issues.
3. Much of the public sector is under-skilled and under-resourced to deliver complex programmes.

I was left yearning to join O’Toole and McBride in a world where decisions are made on the basis of careful consideration of fierce debates of ideas conducted by people with deep knowledge of the facts of a given issue. Unfortunately, I’m just not sure that’s where any of us actually live.

[Derek Nudd · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Unlike an election, the consequences of which will rest on our heads alone, this plebiscite will decide the future for generations yet unborn.'
This quote from the introduction sums up the overriding reason for a book like this to exist. Two journalists each contribute two chapters. One is from a broadly unionist environment in Northern Ireland and the other from a broadly nationalist background in the Republic. Each argues for and against unification. The worrying thing in the context of a future referendum is that the same writer, drawing on the same data, can argue convincingly for radically different conclusions. What does that say about the temperature of debate if it should come to pass?
One clear conclusion is that a referendum or border poll (the terms are used interchangeably) would need careful thought and preparation, both to ensure losers' consent and to design the shape and institutions of the combined state, if that's the way the decision went.
Lurking in the background is the cautionary tale of Brexit where the arguments from both sides rested on slogans, there was no attempt (such as this) to look dispassionately at the issues, and no agreed vision of what post-Brexit Britain should look like. The Irish, on both sides of the border, should at least take a lesson from that.

[ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

O’toole and McBride shine an equivocating light on an important yet under-discussed regional quandary. The work is well researched and arguments are fairly presented, though the structure leaves much to be desired.

By constructing the work as a series of independent arguments which reference each other only through coincidence rather than intention, the authors spurn the opportunity to put their claims under a discerning microscope. By making arguments for both sides, while painstakingly refusing to take a side or deconstruct the opposing argument, the claims made on either side lose their believability. McBride, in the space of 100 pages, goes from extolling the NHS as ‘Precious’, to decrying the ‘unquantifiable suffering’ it causes, without providing any synthesis between these disparate views. The result of this style of presentation is a series of claims which read as performative, leaving the reader no closer to having a sense of the true nature of any given issue.

The contradictions in the arguments are reasonably effective, intentionally or otherwise, at highlighting the deep complications that would be inevitable with any referendum. Unfortunately, the most tangible result of the authors’ refusal to reveal any belief is a case of serious anal splinters for the reader, as a side-effect of extended fence-sitting.

[Jason Blean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Somewhat pioneering work, analysing the real issues that would impact on an Irish Border Poll such as health, education, the economy, cost of living and organisational changes that might occur. To my knowledge it's the first serious attempt to discuss all of these issues in one book, with the economy being the focus of most of the work hitherto. The authors deserve credit for trying to take a balanced, non-idealogue-style approach to the weighty topic, and it seems unique in that each author comes from either side of the border. Both authors are accomplished journalists and authors in their own right, but as well as being from different sides of the border and different religions, they are also from different generations with very different experiences of The Troubles. The analysis makes many valid points including that both options involve risk, and, strikingly, that life expectancy being 2 years greater south of the border without the NHS, what real difference does it make to NI to have an NHS if it is ineffective at delivery? Sinn Féin's abdication of taking any position on these main bread-and-butter issues, passing them off to forums, etc. is exposed, and the prospect of reactionary political violence explored. A serious discussion on relevant issues.

[Aengus Cunningham · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent and important book. Unification is something dear to my heart, having a parent from Northern Ireland. The prospect of unification frightens me only in that it wouldn’t be carefully considered before a decision was made like Brexit. For that reason it is an important book, it is an excellent book because the arguments made are well considered, well put and, critically, are beyond the obvious while thinking of the novel issues and opportunities which would arise.

The two authors, Messrs O’Toole and McBride, are journalists from both sides of the border. They both write a chapter for Irish unity and against it. In truth, I found Sam McBride to be the more compelling writer in both cases but Fintan O’Toole is by no means lacking. They carefully consider issues such as education, healthcare, militarisation, culture, industry and a host of other areas in their discussion.

Ultimately, from reading this book I take the view that unification is a great opportunity for reform in both countries. The most important point the book makes though is that this is an enormous decision and that we have a unique opportunity and obligation to consider it completely.

[Laura Logan · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone with both Irish and Korean heritage, I’m always intrigued (and somehow a little wistful 🥲) by discussions about divided nations and reunification.

I’d previously studied Korean reunification in school, but I knew far less about Irish reunification. So I was happy (and lucky 🤓🍀) to stumble upon this book at the McNally Jackson in Williamsburg.

I thought this was a very balanced presentation of the arguments for and against Irish reunification. Reading it made me appreciate the merits of both sides of the debate, which underscored why reunification is such a difficult issue in practice.

And although Ireland and Korea’s situations are very different - most notably because Irish reunification has an existing legal pathway, whereas Korean reunification remains more of an abstract, long-term aspiration - I also found myself drawing several parallels between them (e.g. proponents of reunification in both cases often employ similar moral arguments about historical injustice and separated communities).

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not nearly as good as Brendan O'Leary's book - "Making sense of a United Ireland, Should it Happen, How might it happen".

While the number of pages for the 'For' and 'Against' argument are about the same, neither author is convincing in their 'For' argument. In the last few pages, Sam McBride gives short paragraphs upping the tempo of the 'against' argument.

While currency is mentioned, there is no details on how Northern Ireland people would convert from Sterling to Euro - wages, savings. If it is fixed in advance (as the Euro was for those countries joining the Euro) then Britain people, no longer in Europe, are tied in as well.

There is little mention of how Ireland, supposedly neutral, will deal with NI as a member of NATO.

[Colm · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really good read. It's so healthy to engage and understand each side of this equasion, regardless of whether you are for, against or as of yet undecided on the proposition of a united Ireland.

Most importantly as inhabitants of this beautiful island we must learn to understand and respect each other's views in order to make the island a better place for us all to live on regardless of the outcome of any such referendum.

Let's keep the conversation going in respectful and logical way, with the goal of creating a better future for our children regardless of any border poll outcome.

[Rob Keenan · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't"
Interesting, high level overview of both sides of the most important decision this island has faced in over 100 years. The Irish government's lack of planning for the potential integration of 2m people is extremely worrying. The book lays out clearly the nuanced differences of North and South in 2025 and the motivations of each side of the border for a Yes/No vote.

Let's see how the next few years play out

[Melike Ceren · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book gave me valuable perspective as someone who is not Irish but lives in Ireland. I really appreciated the debate-style format, that encourages you to understand both angles on similar arguments. I would highly recommend it to anyone who wants to better understand what the Irish border referendum truly means.

It made me think deeper on what establishes a country and sadly reminded me how Cyprus border referendum failed to solve issues.

[Phil · Rating 3 out of 5]

Clunky and superfluous writing (from two writers who I know can do better), way too satisfied with their theme to actually try to say anything revelatory. If you want to hear some debating points, and a couple of survey results, boy do I have a book for you.

Not an absolute waste of time, but I really find a heart to think that there's anybody who knows enough to make this meaningful, but has never given reunification any thought to make this book useful for them.

[Joanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

I came away with a much better understanding of the complexities of a united Ireland but also with feeling that everything is going to be okay. A really important book to introduce the topic which is right around the corner.

[Mairead Kearney · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really easy to read, informative and well written. I finished this book feeling conflicted as to what the path forward should be which is exactly what a book like this should achieve in a reader.

[Annette Poro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well worth reading

[Darragh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting to see the perspectives compared and contrasted.

[Liam J · Rating 5 out of 5]

Food for thought, setting out the context and issues of a future Border Poll.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Informative and educational. An excellent read

[Rhea · Rating 4 out of 5]

very informative. an interesting case study of sectarian divide which reminded me a lot of south asia