DÁIL ÉIREANN
AN COMHCHOISTE UM GHNÓTHAÍ AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH
JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN UNION AFFAIRS
Dé Máirt, 15 Aibreán 2014
Tuesday, 15 April 2014
The Joint Committee met at 2 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Deputy Eric Byrne,
Deputy Seán Crowe,
Deputy Timmy Dooley,
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan,
Deputy John Halligan,
Deputy Dara Murphy,
Deputy Joe O’Reilly,
Senator Colm Burke,
Senator Aideen Hayden,
Senator Kathryn Reilly.
DEPUTY DOMINIC HANNIGAN IN THE CHAIR.
1
Voting Rights of EU Citizens: Discussion (Resumed)
Voting Rights of EU Citizens: Discussion (Resumed)
Chairman: I remind those present to turn off their mobile phones. It is not sufficient to
leave them in silent mode. They need to be switched off, as otherwise they will interfere with
the broadcasting equipment, which means that we will not be able to broadcast the proceedings.
Members will be aware that the European Commission recently published a communication on the voting rights of EU citizens living abroad and the impact of procedures in various
countries in that regard. The Commission has criticised Ireland for not providing voting rights
for its citizens living in other member states. With Ireland, Denmark, Cyprus, Malta and the
United Kingdom have also been cited for disenfranchising voters who have exercised their right
to free movement within the European Union. At this meeting, one of a series of meetings, we
will hear the distinct perspectives on the non-Government side of the House. Fianna Fáil has
nominated Deputy Timmy Dooley who is no stranger to the committee to present its views.
Sinn Féin will be represented by Ms Lynn Boylan who is a member of its Ard Chomhairle,
while an Independent’s view will be presented by Deputy John Halligan.
Before we begin, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect
that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or body outside
the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.
By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute
privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. If they are directed by it to cease
giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to
qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected
with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any
person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.
We have agreed that the order of speakers will be Ms Lynn Boylan, followed by Deputy
John Halligan and Deputy Timmy Dooley. Each of our presenters has approximately five minutes to make his or her contribution, after which we will take questions from members.
Ms Lynn Boylan: I am grateful to the committee for the invitation to outline Sinn Féin’s
proposals on voting rights for Irish people living outside the State. While Sinn Féin welcomes
the communication from the European Commission addressing the consequences of disenfranchising European citizens, our position on voting rights for Irish citizens living outside the State
predates this communication and extends beyond EU member states, because it is based on the
principle of equal citizenship. The current legislative disenfranchisement of citizens residing
outside this State produces an unequal and two-tier citizenship. Sinn Féin supports full voting
rights for all Irish citizens of voting age in presidential elections, regardless of their place of
residence. This would give effect to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, as amended by the
Good Friday Agreement. Emigrant citizens are effectively disenfranchised immediately on
their departure and dual citizens living in the North cannot exercise their constitutional right to
vote.
Currently an anomaly exists whereby Irish citizens living outside the State may stand for the
Presidency and serve as President if elected but they may not vote for presidential candidates.
For this reason we support the introduction of an express constitutional guarantee of a right to
vote in presidential elections for all Irish citizens of voting age. While the method by which
this right is exercised is a matter for ordinary legislation rather the Constitution, care should
2
Joint Committee on European Union Affairs
be taken to ensure that Northern Unionists may also exercise this right should they so choose,
without requiring them to compromise their identity or ethos.
Sinn Féin welcomed the Constitutional Convention’s report on voting rights in presidential
elections for Irish citizens living outside the State. Seventy-eight percent of delegates to the
convention were in favour of extending voting rights. We also note, however, that the fourmonth deadline within which the Government was expected to respond has now passed. We
urge the Taoiseach to arrange a debate in the Dáil on the matter and ask that such a debate be
extended to include consideration of Oireachtas representation for Irish citizens living outside
the State.
With regard to voting rights for the Oireachtas, Sinn Féin’s position is twofold. In respect
of diaspora representation, we regard the diaspora as fundamental to the Irish nation both historically and today. If we can ask our emigrant citizens and people of Irish ancestry to support
Ireland financially and in the peace process, and to otherwise maintain and promote our cultural
heritage abroad, it is not unreasonable to offer those passport holders who care enough to register and vote a limited form of representation in the Oireachtas. Sinn Féin proposes that such
representation should take the form of a reserved constituency, which would neutralise any concerns people may have about swamping of electoral results by our large diaspora population.
This would require an amendment to Article 16 of the Constitution. Sinn Féin does not support
time limits on diaspora voting, and would instead require citizens in the diaspora to regularly
register their intention to vote.
In regard to Irish citizens living in the North, we recognise that the Oireachtas is not the
Parliament of a united Ireland, but Northern citizens are nevertheless affected directly and indirectly by many of the decisions and laws made by the Oireachtas. For this reason, Northern
citizens should have the right to appropriate representation in the Legislature as a form of equal
treatment for their identity, ethos and aspirations, which is guaranteed by the Irish Government
under the Good Friday Agreement. We propose that democratically elected MPs for Northern
constituencies be accorded automatic membership of the Dáil, where they could exercise full
rights of representation on matters they consider relevant to their constituents, subject to reasonable parameters appropriate to their non-residence in this State as set out in legislation. MPs
who choose not to take their seats should nevertheless be afforded attendance and speaking
rights on matters of direct concern to their home constituencies.
Sinn Féin’s position on the Seanad is that the diaspora and Northern citizens should be represented in a reformed Seanad that is fully inclusive, representative and accountable. We see
this as taking the form of specified diaspora and Northern representation.
Sinn Féin fully supports the extension of voting rights to Irish citizens living outside the
State. We are obliged to extend voting rights not only under our EU obligations but also under
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The public will to make such a change
has been demonstrated in numerous polls and in the Constitutional Convention. What is now
required is the political will to make the change.
Deputy John Halligan: I wish to make it clear before I begin that while I was nominated
by the Technical Group I do not necessarily represent the views of its members by virtue of its
composition.
More than 120 of the 196 nations in the world have enfranchised their citizens who live
abroad. Many of the nations which deny the vote are either military dictatorships or given to
3
Voting Rights of EU Citizens: Discussion (Resumed)
elections that are neither fair nor free. Ireland falls into neither category, yet it remains one of
only three EU member states to completely deny emigrants the basic democratic and civil right
to vote. It is estimated that up to 500,000 Irish people who left the country as a result of our
economic problems are disenfranchised. In the past two years alone, more than one quarter of
the population have been affected by the emigration of a close family member. Without the
right to elect a national representative, either at home or elsewhere in the world, these new emigrants are denied meaningful access to our democratic process. Up to 500,000 Irish people, by
being denied the right to vote in Dáil elections, are effectively denied their right to free movement. Concern has repeatedly been expressed at EU level that such a practice risks turning
our emigrants into second-class citizens. Not only will many feel let down because they were
forced to leave what they regard as a bankrupt country and a political system that failed them,
but they are also denied any involvement in a future political system.
Internationally, there has been an accelerating trend towards allowing overseas citizens to
vote, even among countries with particularly high levels of emigration. We live in an interconnected and globalised society where, with the development of social media, Irish emigrants are
in touch with home on a daily basis. It is unjust and a further insult to the people who had to
emigrate from this country for economic reasons that they are now denied a say in the political
process.
The Constitutional Convention took a small step in the right direction when it recommended
the right to vote in presidential elections to citizens outside the State. We now need to follow
the example of our European counterparts and allow our citizens, wherever they may reside, the
right to parliamentary representation. Given that voters living in this country are not asked to
pass a current affairs examination, the argument that people living abroad do not have sufficient
links with their home country and are not interested in politics simply does not hold up. If they
are that disinterested, they will not vote anyway. Studies in other countries that allow their
emigrants to vote show that emigrants do not generally vote in a way that is radically different
from those at home. Surely the option should available for them.
It has been estimated that Ireland has the largest diaspora in the world relative to its domestic population. The number of Irish passport holders living in Northern Ireland and overseas
equates to about 36% of all those who are entitled to be Irish citizens.
The number of Irish passport holders living in Northern Ireland and overseas equates to
approximately 36% of all of those entitled to be Irish citizens. The point has been made repeatedly that given the volume of the diaspora, the process of opening up the voting system
to emigrants would be complicated and overwhelming. However, other nations have come up
with a range of solutions to these challenges. Some countries disallow voting after a certain
period of time. For example, the United Kingdom limits the vote to the first 15 years of living
abroad. France reserves seats in Parliament for representatives elected specifically to represent
those living abroad. There is a diverse range of solutions to every argument against allowing
our emigrants to vote, but it is crucial that we find some way of giving recognition to the Irish
abroad. If one speaks to many of those living abroad, one will find their opinion is that in order
to have a say, they should have a vote in the democratic process here.
Last year, the National Youth Council of Ireland published the results of a qualitative study
on the experience and impact of emigration on Ireland’s youth. The majority who took part in
the study said they intended to return to Ireland after a period of time, provided they could get a
job. This emigrant voice is an integral part of Ireland’s future and it must continue to be heard
in the political life of the country. These people contribute too much to be denied a voice. They
4
Joint Committee on European Union Affairs
deserve more than The Gathering. They deserve to have their say.
Deputy Timmy Dooley: I will outline the Fianna Fáil position on this matter. We believe
Irish citizens abroad should have a say in the political life of Ireland. We support voting rights
for Irish citizens abroad for presidential elections and believe these citizens and our diaspora
should be represented in Seanad Éireann.
With regard to Irish citizens who reside in the European Union, we believe we must find
some way to ensure the rights derived from their citizenship - not just of Ireland but of the European Union - are respected. The European Commission proposal to make it easier for Irish
citizens within the Union to retain their voting rights in Irish elections is a welcome development. However, the implementation of this proposal must be examined carefully before any
rash decisions are taken merely in order to meet the concerns expressed by the Commission.
It must be acknowledged that Ireland is unusual in our increasingly globalised world in not
allowing the majority of its overseas citizens any say in the political process. Members of the
armed forces and the diplomatic services are able to vote in Dáil elections, while only NUI
and Trinity College graduates can vote in Seanad elections. Beyond these exceptions, only
those who are ordinarily resident in Ireland may vote. We believe it is vital for democracy that
Irish citizens who are entitled to vote in our elections can vote. If people engage in the most
important act of our democratic tradition, that of voting, this will enhance our democracy by
consolidating the legitimacy of our parliamentary democracy.
The Council of Europe’s report on Europeans living abroad advocates a broader sense of
citizenship and nationality that embraces rights and responsibilities beyond a simple set of
national feelings. Writing citizenship into the voting system rather than tying it to geography
gives a deeper sense of what it means to come from a particular country. These citizen studies show that those living abroad do not vote radically differently from citizens based in their
country of origin. Currently, approximately 115 countries and territories, including almost all
developed nations, have systems in place to allow their citizens abroad to vote. This number
is growing.
Even countries with high numbers of citizens abroad, such as Italy, the Dominican Republic
and Mexico, have recently allowed their expatriates to vote. If we look at those countries and
examine the systems they have invoked, we can learn from them. If Ireland is to embrace its
citizens abroad, we must look at the logistics of how our voting system can be made work to
embrace the opinions of these citizens. Sixty-five of the countries mentioned allow for external voting for everyone, while approximately 25 place restrictions on voting based on factors
such as whether the person intends to return permanently or how long he or she has been away.
As committee members know, citizens of the US can vote no matter how long they stay away,
while citizens of Britain are disqualified after 15 years. Some countries, like France, reserve
seats in their parliaments for citizens who live abroad, while others vote in the constituencies in
which they used to live. Last week, we heard from European colleagues in regard to the methods they employ to connect the diaspora to the specific places for which they will vote. Other
countries only allow for votes in national or presidential elections.
On the issue of a form, Fianna Fáil supports the idea of having a permanent, independent
electoral commission which would be in charge of running all elections and referendums. I
would like to see the Government set up this kind of commission immediately. The electoral
system can be significantly improved and, as politicians, we must embrace change in this regard. With few exceptions, polling is carried out in the same manner today as it was 90 years
5
Voting Rights of EU Citizens: Discussion (Resumed)
ago. Much has changed in those 90 years and our voting procedures should change also. We
should not be afraid to embrace new ways of doing things in this regard, if that results in greater
participation and an enhanced democratic process.
Voting procedures are not the primary reason turnout in our elections is lower than in other
countries, but voting should certainly be made more accessible. Fianna Fáil has made a number of proposals in this regard in its policy document, Real Political Reform. These proposals include ideas such as a review of Article 16.4.1° of the Constitution, which contains the
requirement for polling to be, as far as practical, on one day. This should be amended to allow
for a more flexible approach. We would support a standard polling procedure as found in some
parts of Europe, where polls are open on Friday and Saturday. Counting could then take place
on Sundays. The predominant model of voting should remain voting in person, but greater
flexibility should be allowed for casting a ballot in advance or through our embassies abroad.
There is already provision for this for citizens who live on our islands. This provision could be
expanded to include our embassy network, in order to allow Irish citizens abroad to vote.
Fianna Fáil agrees with the European Commission recommendations that in instances in
which member states’ policies limit the rights of nationals to vote in national elections based
exclusively on a residence condition, member states should enable their nationals who make
use of their right to free movement and residence within the European Union to demonstrate a
continuing interest in the political life in the member state of which they are nationals, including through an application to remain registered on the electoral roll, and by doing so to retain
their right to vote. We believe this recommendation could be facilitated through our embassy
network within the European Union. It would also ensure that Irish citizens living and working outside Ireland but within the European Union would register with the local embassy. The
register should be required to be updated on an annual basis. Citizens seeking to vote from
abroad should be obliged to select the constituency to which they have the closest connection.
This is important to prevent fraud and would act as a control measure. Nonetheless, Fianna
Fáil accepts that all relevant applications could be submitted electronically. We also accept the
European Commission’s fourth recommendation, that member states inform citizens abroad
by appropriate means and in a timely manner about the conditions and practical arrangements
for retaining their right to vote in national elections. Again, this would have to be facilitated
through our embassy and consular network.
Fianna Fáil is broadly supportive of the recommendations outlined by the European Commission and hopes the Government will use this opportunity to implement a reform of our
electoral system which will broaden participation, establish an independent electoral commission and, for the first time, grant substantial voting rights to all our citizens within the European
Union, and consider extending this right to citizens further afield.
Chairman: I call on Deputy Dara Murphy to begin questions.
Deputy Dara Murphy: As happened last week when we had members from other countries here, we have heard various accounts of what is happening across Europe and there are
differences among all the presentations. I welcome those who have made presentations.
Deputy Dooley touched on the concept of “abroad” and I noticed in Ms Boylan’s presentation a different focus in regard to the North. Deputy Dooley mentioned Irish citizens living
within the European Union, which one might consider to be less “abroad” than other parts of the
world. Do the witnesses believe there should be a difference between how Irish citizens within
Northern Ireland or the European Union are considered and those in the rest of the world?
6
Joint Committee on European Union Affairs
Could this be a stepping stone to getting the vote for Irish citizens abroad?
What is the witnesses’ view on European Union citizens in any European country, including
Ireland, voting in our national elections? Those of us canvassing in the local elections meet
people who have EU passports but cannot vote here. What is good for the goose, etc. Deputy
Dooley may have included the point about the difference between citizen and diaspora but I
may have misheard it. A fourth or fifth generation Irish person may have another passport. Is
it proposed that anyone with any links to Ireland should have a right to vote? I believe that
was the Spanish position. Given that we have the largest diaspora in the world, is the right to
be confined to passport holders? Ms Boylan mentioned the registration process which possibly
answers that question.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I too welcome the guests and witnesses and congratulate
them on their submissions. In respect of dual citizenship is it presumed that all Irish citizens
abroad, in Europe, the US, Australia or wherever, would have the right to vote whether they had
an Irish passport or not? The three witnesses might clarify that. If they do not have the right to
vote, how would the witnesses determine who should and should not vote? These people would
retain their rights to vote in their adoptive countries. How would that be affected by membership of the EU? Within the EU the presumption is that they would have the right to vote in the
country in which they reside and in this country.
Ms Boylan referred to politicians from Northern Ireland having the right to participate in
these Houses. How would that affect groups who might decide to abstain? Given that we are
trying to give representation to a broader spectrum of Irish people would their abstention diminish their influence?
The embassy voting system proposal is quite good. It is normal that we would expect that
the embassies could be used for voting abroad. I would have serious reservations about changing the method of voting based on our previous experience. A move in that direction would not
necessarily be of any great benefit to the diaspora or us. I strongly urge that we avoid moving
in that direction notwithstanding advances in technology and the need to modernise. The basic
elements of democracy are well founded and historically tested. That they are old, or in some
cases, old-fashioned, does not mean that they are out of date or no longer valid.
Deputy Joe O’Reilly: I see nothing wrong with the principle. It is good from a number of
perspectives that members of our diaspora would have the right to vote. I also agree with using
the embassies. That makes sense. Electronic registration should be allowed, to enable people
to indicate their interest. How far would we go down the generations? We would have to go
to the first generation to have left the country. I think we would have to stop at that generation,
albeit subsequent generations claim their Irishness.
Chairman: They could play for the football team but they could not vote.
Deputy Joe O’Reilly: There is a distance at that point and the person is more likely to
identify with his or her adoptive homeland. It becomes messy. It is difficult to administer and
where is the cut-off? Could a third-generation person, who has a very romanticised and distant
concept of the homeland, vote and influence the outcome of elections here? I think not. I would
stop at the first generation but I will be interested in the panel’s response to that question and to
how it will be administered.
Deputy Eric Byrne: I thank the three witnesses for their contribution which has added to
7
Voting Rights of EU Citizens: Discussion (Resumed)
the contribution by the three ambassadors who explained their voting arrangement with their
citizens. We will be taking this debate in conjunction with the Irish in Britain group who made
a very interesting submission in so far as they raise very stark figures.
Chairman: The group will come in as well.
Deputy Eric Byrne: Is it coming in separately?
Chairman: Yes, after Easter.
Deputy Eric Byrne: The group indicates that in England and Wales alone there are in excess of 400,000 Irish passport holders. The broader diaspora there is between 3 and 4 million.
We do not know the figures for Scotland. Across the world the diaspora is probably between
40 and 60 million people.
In order for this committee to make a serious recommendation to the Parliament will each
of the witnesses define his or her party’s position on what constitutes citizenship? We will have
to prepare a report that is very specific and need to know who we are talking about. Who does
each party argue has the right to vote? How do they define citizenship? While the embassies
could be used in Europe because there is, I think, one in each of the 28 member states it is more
complicated for the diaspora who are scattered. It is well documented that we are very poorly
represented by embassies and consulates in other countries, such as Denmark. How do we, on
the one hand, enfranchise a diaspora that we deem Irish on the basis of citizenship but on the
other hand, have a large diaspora whom the process cannot encompass? Do we then create a
two-tier citizenship or are the benefits of citizenship to be unfairly distributed? It is not difficult
in Europe and America where there are great numbers of Irish people but there are many also
scattered throughout isolated parts of Africa. One finds Irish people all over the world. How
do the witnesses define citizenship in order to allocate voting rights? Do any of the witnesses
agree that while the convention has looked at presidential elections - many speakers referred
to it - it is really a cop-out with regard to what the European Commission said? The Commission is not talking about presidential elections; it is talking about general elections or national
elections.
Deputy Seán Crowe: We always seem to begin a conversation about what we cannot
do. First, what is most important to establish is whether we agree with the idea and if it is a
good idea. We should really start the conversation from there, not by saying why we cannot
do something. We can all come up with obstacles, some of which have been mentioned previously. Fraud is one issue. Logistics is another issue to which everyone refers. Concern has
been expressed to the effect that the vote might influence the Government in this country. I
invite comments in that regard. I accept that reference was made to it in some contributions.
Reference was made to the Irish in Britain. A quote from President Michael D. Higgins suggests that the Irishness now emerging will be informed by the experience of the Irish abroad.
That is the type of inclusive language we need to use in the debate. One probably does have to
put up barriers in terms of where one starts, but do the witnesses agree that first we must try to
include the diaspora? It could be a starting point. Ultimately, we might confine it to passport
holders, or it might depend on how long a person has lived abroad. We can discuss the detail
later.
The witnesses stated that 78% of delegates at the Constitutional Convention were in favour
of giving votes to the diaspora. Opinion polls all point in the same direction. We are not just out
8
Joint Committee on European Union Affairs
of step with the rest of the world in terms of how countries give their diaspora a vote, but it appears we are also out of step with the feelings of Irish people. Reference was made to the Good
Friday Agreement and to people in the North. Is it the impression of the witnesses that such an
approach was envisaged in the Agreement - that people would be brought into this House and
that it would not be a cold place for Northern Nationalists or Unionists? The situation has not
developed that way. I am a member of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good
Friday Agreement. We were to involve people in discussions. It is important that that element
of the Agreement is also developed.
People say they are Irish when they leave, but when does one lose one’s Irishness? Is it right
that one would lose one’s Irishness after six months, 12 months, 20 years or 100 years – whatever length of time one is out of the country? One could even narrow the confines in terms of
who would be allowed to vote. Do the witnesses accept that if we could tap into the 70 million
people who consider themselves to have an Irish background, it would be a good thing for this
country? We are great at asking people for money and remittances. I refer to The Gathering,
for example. However, do the witnesses agree that the potential of those people is also an issue
to be considered in the debate?
Senator Aideen Hayden: I will be somewhat provocative. We are talking about two criteria. One is citizenship, which is based on nationhood – in reality, a 19th century principle that
precedes the European Union and the idea of a transnational identity. The second is the other
pre-EU principle, which is that of subsidiarity. In other words, decision-making is brought
down to the lowest possible level so that the person who is going to be most affected by the
decision should have a say in how the decision is made. In reality, we have two competing
principles. One of the things we are trying to do is to reconcile those principles. I am not clear
how that can be done to the extent that it has been discussed by the committee - not necessarily
by the three witnesses, but by other people who have come before us.
I note that for the sake of argument Deputy Halligan talked about Irish citizens – I ask him
to correct me if I am wrong – having a say in presidential elections and Seanad elections but
not Dáil elections, for example.
Deputy John Halligan: No, I did not say that.
Senator Aideen Hayden: If he does not mind my saying so, there seems to be a consensus
between Deputy Halligan and Deputy Dooley that we will have the engagement of Irish citizens
outside this country at the level of power – I say that with no disrespect to the Seanad, of which
I am a Member – at which they will have the least say in what is happening in the country.
I would be interested in hearing what specific diaspora representation Ms Boylan has in
mind and what qualifies as the diaspora. Does she mean Irish citizens abroad? Deputy Byrne
asked the same question.
In terms of specific Northern representation, I might be behind the curve, but for the sake
of argument, how many people from the South are represented in the Northern Irish Assembly?
To what extent can we talk about parity of esteem? To what extent should we look at subsidiarity - in other words, that the people who are most affected by decisions are the ones who make
the decisions?
When we talk about Irish citizens abroad, are we not to some extent moving away from
the principle that the EU stands for, which is a community of interests? Does Ms Boylan
9
Voting Rights of EU Citizens: Discussion (Resumed)
suggest that we should give rights to Irish people resident in the EU? None of the witnesses
said whether there should be a difference between Irish citizens who are resident in other EU
countries and Irish citizens who are resident in the US, China, Japan or wherever else. To what
extent is this about the European Union, our membership of it and our citizenship within the
European Union, and to what extent is Ms Boylan talking about the interests of Irish citizens
who live outside Ireland?
I am personally conflicted on the issue of nationhood. To me, moving towards more European involvement is about the community of the European Union and less about nationhood,
but then perhaps that is my particular perspective.
Deputy John Halligan: First, there is no question but that all of us accept it is a complex
issue by virtue of the fact that we have the largest diaspora in the world relative to the population in Ireland. It is in the region of 40 million to 70 million if one is to include everybody who
left Ireland.
A couple of issues arise. One is that we should be careful how we decide to define an Irish
citizen. The Chairman said that we do not have a problem with someone representing our
country in football games because their grandfather was born in Ireland. We tend to cherish
the person who puts on a green jersey and sings the national anthem. We probably give such
a person more recognition that we would give to someone who was born in this country but is
unable to vote because he or she had to leave the country through no fault of his or her own.
Deputy Crowe hit the nail on the head. First, we need to accept that there is a problem namely, that we are disenfranchising millions of Irish people around the world. It is a complex
situation. It might be that we decide to give the vote to everybody who holds an Irish passport.
Someone suggested that we could trace family heredity. I have family members in America
who have been there for two or three generations. One could ask whether we should go down
through the generations and give them a vote. I am not too sure about that. I am open to hearing the opinion of others in that regard. We all accept that we need to stop disenfranchising our
citizens. Many members will have relations living in other countries who are still interested in
what happens in Ireland. Without getting into the blame game for our bad economic situation,
as we could have the same 20 years from now, hundreds of thousands of people have had to
leave our country through no fault of their own. If we asked them if they would like to have a
say in how the country is run, they would give a resounding “Yes”. We owe it to those people.
I accept that it would be extremely difficult and complicated to give the vote to the 70 million
people around the world who claim Irish ancestry. Legislatively, it would probably collapse on
top of us. However, a person born in this country who has an Irish passport should be given
the vote.
I specifically did not mention the Seanad because ordinary people do not have a vote in its
elections anyway.
Senator Aideen Hayden: The point was that the Deputy mentioned the presidential and
Seanad elections but not the Dáil.
Deputy John Halligan: I believe citizens should have a vote in all elections in the country.
If I did not mention that, I apologise.
Deputy Joe O’Reilly: The question arises as to how seats would be given to the diaspora.
Deputy John Halligan: There is no question about that. However, we have to start on the
10
Joint Committee on European Union Affairs
premise that we are wrongfully disenfranchising our citizens, as Europe has told us. I agree that
we need to include the greater diaspora. We cannot just give the vote to Irish citizens in Europe
while excluding those in America and Australia.
Ms Lynn Boylan: Sinn Féin recognises that we have a problem in terms of disenfranchising people, and its policy is open to discussing the mechanics of dealing with it. Citizenship
cannot be exclusive but must be based on equality. Sinn Féin’s policy is that a European citizen
resident in Ireland for five years should be afforded the right to vote in national elections. One
would need a compelling argument as to why it cannot be extended to Dáil elections if it is extended to presidential and Seanad elections.
There are many ways around the issue of those in the diaspora overruling the people living
in Ireland. Many other countries have figured out the mechanics of this. Sinn Féin proposes
that the diaspora vote would go to a reserved constituency, which would prevent such swamping.
Under Article 2, people in the North have the right to belong to the Irish nation. They are
slightly different, however, so it is not just a case of broadening it out to citizens of EU member
states. That is why we would treat them separately. At the moment, they are treated differently
from Northern Unionists who vote for the British Parliament.
Chairman: Has Sinn Féin a policy on European elections? Last week we heard that Spanish citizens living in Dublin have the right to vote in the Irish and Spanish constituencies in the
European elections. Should someone in the North be able to vote in the European Northern
constituency as well as here?
Ms Lynn Boylan: I was not aware of the Spanish situation. I thought the requirement to
get the form stamped was to prevent one from voting twice. EU citizens and people resident in
Ireland for five years or more should have the vote in national elections.
Deputy Timmy Dooley: When I use the term “citizen”, I am referring to anyone who is
entitled to an Irish passport, be they second generation or even born here. The question arises
on how we treat Irish citizens residing in the EU as opposed to those outside it. Should an
Irish citizen be only allowed one vote for the European Parliament? What about the Irish citizen residing in Australia? There are mechanics that can be worked out. The principle is that
citizens who wish to avail of a franchise that will allow them some capacity to determine the
governance of a jurisdiction they feel is important to them should be facilitated. I take Senator
Hayden’s point about the guiding principles of the European Union and the shared nature of the
way in which we do our business rather than an attachment to nationhood. I am of a similar
mind to Deputy Halligan on this.
As for the swamping effect of a potential 400,000 Irish voters in England and Wales, the
experience in countries such as Italy, the Dominican Republic and Mexico, which allow their
diasporas to vote, shows that there is actually a low take-up of this entitlement. I feel those
who left the country more recently will be the ones who will take up the vote, rather than the
60 million people in the United States who could potentially have an Irish passport and claim
some ancestry from the old sod. I do not have concerns about swamping or the external vote
overtaking the domestic vote.
As Deputy Crowe said, we have to start somewhere and set the ball rolling. Our view is that
we should start with presidential and Seanad elections. We have a view about the composition
11
Voting Rights of EU Citizens: Discussion (Resumed)
of the Seanad and how it is elected. In doing so we give a greater participation to the citizens
of the State and those outside. That would allow for broader access to the voting system and it
could, therefore, be extended in a way that would cover what Senator Hayden mentioned.
Deputies Durkan and Byrne raised the issue of what we would do in the event of our not
having an embassy. We must provide some other methodology by which people can cast their
votes. If they have registered electronically, for example, we must afford them some kind of
postal process or otherwise that allows for the vote to be cast. Deputy Durkan has clearly said
he would like to retain the peann luaidhe. Notwithstanding that, I have always been a firm believer that electronic voting and i-voting should not be ruled out. While I accept that we had a
difficult experience, it has been made to work in other countries and it should not prevent our
revisiting the system. I do not suggest it is a priority, but we need to examine it.
Chairman: If we do, we want to get it right next time.
Deputy Timmy Dooley: I leave it up to the Chairman. Maybe he will be able to progress
it before 2016.
Chairman: I doubt it.
Deputy Eric Byrne: We could contact India, the largest democracy in the world, after its
election and see if they have any tips.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: The Chairman will be glad to know I will not return to electronic voting. How is the reserved constituency envisaged to operate? Would the candidates
come from the diaspora? Would they reside in the island of Ireland or their adopted countries?
How would the logistics work, for example, if they had to come for a vote on a Wednesday
evening from New York, Ottawa or elsewhere? I am concerned about how that might work and
whether they would come at all.
Chairman: We are hoping to have a member of the French National Assembly, Axelle Lemaire, who represents Ireland, England and Scandinavia, come before the committee. French
citizens living here, in the United Kingdom or Scandinavia vote for her. Her office is in Camden Town, London. In the same way as Deputies here come up from the country on a Tuesday
and return on a Thursday, she goes to Paris for the meetings of the National Assembly but lives
in the United Kingdom. I am not sure if candidates must be members of the diaspora or if they
choose to live where the voters are.
Deputy Dara Murphy: I do not believe any of us has to live in the Republic of Ireland. It
tends to come in handy when canvassing if one can say one lives in the country. Did the Commission comment on any age restrictions on election candidates in different countries? Deputy
Durkan brought it up.
Chairman: No, but we can ask the Commission for clarification.
Deputy Eric Byrne: I am looking forward to the French coming in to explain their position. Will those who propose a reserved constituency explain to me what would happen in a
general election? The Commission is talking very specifically about our national elections, not
the presidential or Seanad elections. Who wishes to explain to me how one would operate the
single transferable vote in a general election, as opposed to the French who might have the list
system? How would one distribute votes from all over the world that are cast by the diaspora in
a reserved constituency? Who would be the candidates in this reserved constituency?
12
Joint Committee on European Union Affairs
Chairman: The French have several reserved constituencies, including Australasia and
North America. If we had something similar, the size of those constituencies would probably
depend on the population in each one. The North American constituency might, for example,
have three seats and the Australasian five seats. There would be proportional representation in
those constituencies and six people might run for the three seats in the North American constituency. It would be the same as if one were running in Dublin South-Central I imagine. What do
our guests think?
Deputy Timmy Dooley: Although I did not propose it, I agree with it.
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Nor did I.
Ms Lynn Boylan: These are the mechanics. We are talking about the general principles
and opening up the conversation about whether we agree that we want to extend the vote to
people living outside the State. We are open to suggestions about how it is done. The reserved
constituency works as a barrier to swamping, which is one of the fears people have about extending the right to vote. Although we have not set out a very concrete proposal, we think the
reserved constituency is the preferred method because it prevents swamping. The logistics of
representation for the different countries or areas can be decided once we get broad agreement
on whether we are in favour of extending the vote or not.
Deputy John Halligan: We need to bring the French in to discuss this because they established the reserved constituency to avoid swamping. I am not sure how that works.
Chairman: We will do that. I thank everybody for their contributions. We are grateful for
their time and contributions. Fine Gael and the Labour Party will come in after Easter for a
similar session. I ask members to remain for some private business.
The joint committee went into private session at 3.07 p.m. and adjourned at 3.25 p.m. until
2 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 May 2014.
13