Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

That is correct. In the ordinary course of events this would be one of those very dull debates where we give our comments on the Constituency Commission's proposals before accepting them. In the debate on the recommendations of the previous Constituency Commission, that was my position.

I will address the missed opportunity of giving some recognition to the North of Ireland and I will respond directly to Deputy Cassells on that. Before doing so, I raise the matter of the two "deep freeze" seats, to use the term used by Deputy Cassells. It is not the Government's fault and we are all caught in a bind whereby a delayed Brexit will result in two of the successful winners of the seats, subject to this legislation, having lesser status. I would have liked to hear from the Minister of State what mechanism the Government is looking at with the amendments. I can think of only two. Either the additional seats in Dublin and Ireland South go on hold or it is determined by whoever gets the lowest number of votes. The problem with the second option is it could end up with a disproportionate lack of representation for Midlands-North-West. If the Minister of State could give some indication of where is the thinking of the Department, it would be helpful. It would also be helpful if people understood what the status means. Would it be similar to what happened with Croatia before its accession, for example, with certain entitlements for people, who would not just sit at home for the period in question? It would be very helpful for the Minister of State to provide clarity on that.

I was going to deal with the political point anyway before Deputy Cassells made his remarks. From a political perspective this was a missed opportunity. I accept that the Constituency Commission has a certain limitation with its statutory remit, as we teased out at the private session with the officials. The Government could have seriously considered the possibility of having a designated constituency for the North of Ireland for European Parliament elections. The legal case is very strong and the Minister of State knows we submitted a detailed legal opinion on the matter that is worthy of discussion. Leaving aside the legal arguments, given that the majority of people in the North of Ireland voted to remain in the European Union and that Brexit of any kind, and particularly the chaotic Brexit presenting itself to us, will have a disproportionately negative impact on people in the North of Ireland, there was a political imperative to seriously consider this. My concern, notwithstanding rhetoric in Second Stage speeches, is that I have not seen anything other than our proposals where it has been seriously considered.

I will not make a political speech but I will read some of the key conclusions from the legal opinion. I am happy to give a copy to Deputy Cassells so he can consider it more fully. While he may not agree with us, at least he would have to accept we did not make a superficial case but rather one that took quite some consideration. In the conclusions, the solicitors and barristers involved in the opinion stated "The extension of voting rights in EP elections to EU citizens in Northern Ireland will have to be limited to Irish citizens as opposed to all residents of the jurisdiction." That is regrettable and I would have preferred it if we could have extended this to all residents in the North of Ireland. It is not legally possible so that is why it would only be extended to Irish citizens. The opinion suggests that in producing the report, the boundary commission could have looked at these broader issues and it makes the case in the context of its "promotion of values contained in Bunreacht na hÉireann and the EU treaties." The opinion further states, crucially, "Member states are granted a wide measure of discretion, albeit subject to the treaty and secondary EU legislation, in how they organise their electoral systems, including elections to the European Parliament." There is scope, legally speaking, for this to be seriously considered at least.

The legal opinion goes on to state "In its current state of development, European Union law does not require that member states provide for external voting for non-resident citizens." It imposes "no restrictions on the ability of member states to extend the franchise for EP elections to non-resident citizens." There is no impediment in European law for such a thing.

Indeed the legal expert suggested that, "The extension of the franchise to non-resident citizens is consistent with the democratic principles on which the European Union is founded." That is an eminently sensible proposition. It goes on to say, "The extension of the franchise to non-resident citizens is consistent with widespread state practice in the European Union." Many other European states already have certain arrangements that are not dissimilar. "The extension of the franchise could be said to complement the requirement on the UK government to ensure no diminution of rights of citizens in Northern Ireland occurs as a result of Brexit." That is plainly self-evident.

We do have a uniquely restrictive system of external voting, without a doubt. We have discussed this, and the Minister of State is bringing forward legislation and subsequent referendums. A challenge by an Irish citizen deprived of his or her voting rights is at least a real possibility in certain circumstances.

The legal opinion continues, "The extension of voting rights to Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland would be consistent with EU law" and that the creation of a new constituency for the North of Ireland is "primarily a matter" of policy choice for this House. It is a political matter for us to decide if it is something we want to do.

While Deputy Cassells makes a legitimate point in saying it would result in a divergence of representation I would imagine that folks in the North of Ireland would be happy with any representation in the European Parliament, even if the ratio was disadvantageous to them, which it would be in this instance, rather than having no representation at all.

See this speech in context