Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill. While Sinn Féin may disagree with what is being suggested, it is understandable what is being proposed by Government given the unprecedented circumstances.

The proposal of withholding two MEPs from taking up their role until such time as we have certainty as regards the completion of the first stage of Brexit is something that I am uncomfortable with. The proposal suggests a large contradiction with the ethos of PR-STV. If a fourth-placed candidate happens to be in fourth place whenever the final count takes place does not mean that he or she was the fourth placed in the European constituency's preference. For example, in Dublin, if a candidate is in fourth place when the final count comes to an end, his or her running mate may have been fifth and his or her transfers were not distributed. If the fifth-placed candidate was the fourth-placed candidate's running mate from the same political party or from a similar ideology or locality, his or her transfers would have a different effect on the fourth-placed candidate's place had he or she been eliminated earlier, or if the party had run only one candidate, the place and vote share would be substantially different.This is one of the many reasons we give candidates elected under the proportional representation and the single transferable vote, PRSTV, system equal weight in their election. To suggest they are lesser elected candidates shows a very deep misunderstanding. However, I hope that in this instance MEPs are not kept waiting for a substantial amount of time, unable to represent their constituents in the European Parliament as they are properly elected to do.

If Article 50 is extended by a renewed agreement but Britain does not wish to hold European elections, these MEPs-in-waiting may be left on the sidelines for a year or two years of their term due to where they happen to fall in the final count of their election. As things currently stand, an extension of Article 50 would mean European Parliament elections taking place in Britain and the North. A renewed agreement may seek to avoid that due to the conflict it may cause in Britain.

My party and I do not support distributing additional MEP seats across the State. I do not wish to dwell on this, but I respectfully suggest that should other scenarios like this arise, we should not lock this solution in as a default remedy by setting a precedent. Our party's solution is radically different. As this House will know, we wish to allocate the two additional seats to the North. The representation of the people of the North in the European Parliament by candidates from the North is absolutely crucial. Their voices are instrumental in providing diversity. They can play a vital role in interacting with the European Parliament to ensure the effectiveness of the backstop, to ensure there is no hard border, to ensure legacy issues are brought to European attention and to ensure that citizens' rights under the Good Friday Agreement are upheld. This all needs to continue regardless of Britain's membership of the European Union. In effect, by losing these seats, none of these concerns can be pursued by MEPs mandated to do so by people in the North. We can claim that MEPs in the South will do this. However, the sentiment that MEPs in the South can represent everyone in the North is disrespectful. It is a piecemeal approach that we should not be satisfied to stand over. We do not have any right to decide who the North's European representatives should be no matter where they stand.