The Fine Gael leader suggested that the proposed changes in the Constitution might lead to a situation whereby Irish people living abroad would be entitled to vote in elections in the Republic.

Mr John Bruton said: "Given that it is now to be the entitlement and birthright of everybody born in the island of Ireland to be part of the Irish nation, does that not mean that every Irish person, who was born here, no matter where they are living in t he world, would be entitled to vote in a Dail election under Article 2 when read in conjunction with Articles 1 and 16?" Mr Bruton said that even somebody who was aged 60 or 70, and who had left the State when they were three, would be constitutionally entitled to a vote under the new Articles 1, 2 and 16.

"That is not an insubstantial question which needs to be clarified. I am aware of the difficulties there have been in the past with proposals for conferring votes on people living outside the jurisdiction."

Mr Bruton was speaking during the committee stage debate on the 19th Amendment to the Constitution Bill, paving the way for the referendum on the Northern Ireland Agreement. The Bill passed its final stages in the Dail without a division.

He said another possibility which needed to be reflected upon was that members elected to the House of Commons might present themselves at the doors of the Dail and claim that they were entitled to a seat under Article 1, which gave them and the people they represented the sovereign right to choose the form of government in this State.

Other issues needed to be considered, Mr Bruton added. A Sinn Fein member elected to a constituency in west Belfast or mid-Ulster could say they were part of the Irish nation but did not want to take their seat in Westminster on principle.

"Under Article 1 they are entitled to have a say in the governance of the nation, so they state their wish to take their seat here. They claim they will take the State to court if they are not allowed to do so.

"What way would such a decision go in the courts? The Government should have an answer to that, although I am not sure it will be convincing. We need to know what we are doing before we do it."

Mr Bruton said they should not underestimate the possibilities of what might be considered in the House to be mischievous legal challenges to anything that the Government might do.

"I mean mischievous in the sense that they may be made by people who would be considering only a very small part of the picture and would not be taking into account the broader considerations that a government by its nature has to take into account.

"I hesitate to criticise the courts in this forum, but there have been occasions when some of us in this House might have considered that the courts took an unduly narrow interpretation of the Constitution, interpreted it very literally in regard to one or two articles and did not take account of the broader considerations of State policy that a government, mandated by the people indirectly through this House, has to take into account.

"Therefore, we should be wary of any matter of this nature."

The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, said the constitutional change did not affect the fact that Article 16 had precise and specific rules about elections.

Article 6 stated that the powers of the Government derived from the people rather than the nation. Article 46 of the Constitution referred to submitting proposals for constitutional amendments to the people rather than to the nation or the citizens. "This distinction could be of importance in dealing with arguments made on behalf of citizens who do not reside within the State to be entitled to claim a vote."

Mr Ahern said it was constitutional for the electoral laws to exclude non-residents. "That is envisaged by Article 16.2 under the scheme of election through geographical constituencies."

He added that the possibility of someone bringing a court action could not be ruled out and one could only reduce the chances of its success over time.