Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

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 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?