1

M.Golubeva,K.Žibas,V.Petrušauskaitė,M.Rikša,

A.AustersandJ.SegešFrelak

Domobilecitizensengage?

AStudyontheParticipationofPolish,LithuanianandLatvianCitizensinIreland

2016

2

TableofContents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................3Politicalparticipationofimmigrants................................................................................................3MobileEUcitizensfromLatvia,LithuaniaandPolandinEUMemberStates...................................4ParticipationopportunitiesandlimitationsinIreland......................................................................5Whatistobedone?.........................................................................................................................6Researchquestionsforthepresentstudy........................................................................................6

Surveytargetgroup......................................................................................................................8

Demographicdata........................................................................................................................8

Findings........................................................................................................................................9Englishlanguageproficiency............................................................................................................9PlanstoacquireIrishcitizenshiportoreturn...................................................................................9TrustinInstitutions.........................................................................................................................13PoliticalParticipationandCivicEngagement.................................................................................17Electoralparticipation....................................................................................................................20KnowledgeofpoliticalinstitutionsinIreland.................................................................................26Labourmarketconfidenceandlackoffaithinunions...................................................................28

ConclusionsandRecommendations...........................................................................................29

Bibliography...............................................................................................................................32

Thisstudyispublishedwithintheframeworkoftheproject“Energizingmobilecitizens’participation”(JUST/2014/RCIT/AG/CITI/7284)thatissupportedbytheRights,EqualityandCitizenship(REC)ProgrammeoftheEuropeanUnion.ResponsibilityforthecontentofthispublicationlieswiththeCentreforPublicPolicyPROVIDUS.

ISBN978-9934-532-14-6

©CentreforPublicPolicyPROVIDUS

©MarijaGolubeva,KarolisŽibas,VitaPetrušauskaite,MartaRikša,AldisAusters,JustynaSegešFrelak

©Coverphoto–AnitaAustvika,momenti.lv

3

Introduction

This study looks at the political participation ofmobile European Union (EU) citizens in Ireland,focusingprimarilyontheLatvian,LithuanianandPolishcommunities.

MobilecitizensareEUcitizensexercising their rightof freemovementand living temporarily (ornot)inanotherEUMemberStatethantheircountryofcitizenship.

The study was conducted as part of the project “Energising mobile citizens’ participation”,supportedbytheEuropeanUnionandimplementedbyPROVIDUS(Latvia),DiversityDevelopmentGroup(Lithuania),InstituteofPublicAffairs(Poland),ForumPolonia(Ireland)andLeinsterLatvianAssociation(Ireland).

The study looks at theactual situationwithengagementandparticipationof Latvian, LithuanianandPolish citizens in Ireland, thebarriers theyencounterand theopportunities thatneed tobeexploredinordertoimproveparticipation.

The methods used during the study include focus groups with Latvian, Lithuanian and PolishcitizensinIreland(conductedinDecember2015andJanuary2016)andasurveyofmobilecitizensbelongingtothethreecommunities(conductedinFebruaryandMarch2016).

Politicalparticipationofimmigrants

Politicalparticipationcanbestudiedfromanumberofaspects.Martinelloproposesthatpoliticalintegration of immigrants has four dimensions - political rights, identification with the targetcountry, adoption of norms and values, and “political participation, mobilisation andrepresentation”.1While the EU institutions and EU policiesmake a consistent andwell-foundeddistinctionbetweentwotypesofmigrants–EUmobilecitizensandthird-countrynationals–andMartinello’s dimensions of integration are primarily formulated with third country nationals inmind,toalargeextenttheseaspectsofintegrationconcernalsomobilecitizens.

ThisstudyconcernsprimarilyoneofMartinello’sdimensions–politicalparticipation,mobilisationandrepresentation.Itwouldmakesense,however,todistinguishbetweenseveralaspectsofthisdimension,namely:

• levelofengagementormobilecitizens’orientationtowardsparticipationinthecountryofresidence,oraffectivedimension,

1 M.Martinello (2005) Political participation, mobilisation and representation of immigrants and their offspring inEurope.WillyBrandtSeriesofWorkingPapersinInternationalMigrationandEthnicrelations,1/05.MalmoUniversity,page2-3.

4

• actual participation practices and patterns or the extent to which mobile citizens areparticipating in local political activities in the country of residence via civil society, inelections,politicalpartiesandlocalelectedcouncils).

Onthewhole, thereexistsanegativegapbetweenconventional (electoral)participationratesofimmigrantsandlocalcitizensinEurope:immigrantsparticipateinpoliticalactivitiesatsignificantlylowerratesthanthemajoritypopulation;theseratescandifferby10%inWesternEurope.2ThisconcernsalsoEUmobilecitizens:a reporton the impactof freemovementofEUcitizensat thelocallevel3concludedthatEUmobilecitizens’participationinthecities'civicandpoliticallifewasstill limited. Intermsofconventional(electoral)participation,participationgapwith localcitizensdecreaseswithyearsspentinhostcountry.4

MobileEUcitizensfromLatvia,LithuaniaandPolandinEUMemberStates

AfterthecollapseoftheSovietUnion,Latvia,LithuaniaandPolandhaveplayedanimportantroleas ‘sending’ countries and have witnessed population outflow,mainly to EU countries, creatingmigrant communities, which are not always politically active in the new country of residence.IrelandisthesecondbiggestdestinationcountryforLatvian,LithuanianandPolishmigrants,afterUK.Currently,thereare117918Poles,35817Lithuaniansand20252LatvianslivinginIreland.5

DataontheparticipationofLatvian,LithuanianandPolishcitizensinlocalandEuropeanelectionsinotherEUcountrieshasnotbeenstudiedindepth.AstudyontheparticipationofPolishcitizensintheUKnotesthatthelevelofactivismamongPolesintheUKisstilllimited,6andanotherstudyindicatesthatparticipationofPolesintradeunionsisbelowthenationalaverageintheUK.7TherearenosimilarstudiesonLatviansandLithuaniansintheUKorIreland.

A study commissioned by the Lithuanian government in 2014 shows that themajority (68%) ofLithuanians living abroad assessed the possibility of participation in the political life of receivingcountry as good or satisfactory, however, 73% of those surveyed still have not taken theopportunity toparticipate.More thanhalf (53%)of respondents indicated thatLithuanians livingabroadarenotsufficientlyinvolvedinthepoliticalandpubliclifeofthecountryofresidence.8

ExistingstudiesoftheparticipationofLatvianmobilecitizens innationalelections inLatviashowthat they are politically much less active than citizens staying in Latvia (26,42% in 2014

2 E.A. De Rooij (2011) Patterns of Immigrant Political Participation: Explaining Differences in Types of PoliticalParticipationbetweenImmigrantsandtheMajorityPopulationinWesternEurope.EuropeanSociologicalReview,5.3 EYfortheEuropeanCommission(2014)EvaluationoftheimpactofthefreemovementofEUcitizensatlocallevel.Finalreport.Brussels.4 OECD (2015) 'Civic engagement of immigrants', in Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015: Settling In. OECDPublishing,Paris. 5Eurostat(2016).6J.Kucharczyk(ed.)(2013)Nothingaboutus,withoutus.CivicparticipationofPolesinGreatBritain,IPA,Warsaw.7L.Fulton(2015)PolishWorkersintheUK.TheirInvolvementwithUnionsandTheirEmploymentRights.IPA,Warsaw.8MarketandOpinionResearchCentreVILMORUS(2014).

5

parliamentaryelectionsversus58,85%amongcitizensresident inLatvia).9AnotherstudyhasalsodiscoveredthatLatvianslivingabroadarelessinclinedtowardsparticipationinawidersensethanLatviansinLatvia.10

There are no comprehensive studies showing the trends of political participation of Baltic andPolishcitizensinEUmemberstates.

ParticipationopportunitiesandlimitationsinIreland

AccordingtoMigrationPolicyGroup(MIPEX,2010),politicalparticipationopportunitiesinIrelandrate among the highest in Europe. This includes both electoral rights and political liberties: EUcitizensandeventhird-countrynationalsinIrelandcanvoteinlocalelections,canbeelectedandcanenjoythesamecivilliberties.Atthesametime,therearelimitingfactors,suchascomplicatedregistration forvoting. Ireland isamong the5EUcountrieswith rules leading toa lossofvotingrightsforIrishcitizensinnationalelectionsbecauseofresidenceinanotherEUcountry(EuropeanCommission,2014).

Pastexperienceoflocalelectionsshowsthatopportunitiesforparticipationofimmigrantsexistandthatpartieshavebeenreceptive to the fact thatmanyvoterscomefromothercountries.E.g.,astudy by University College Dublin indicates that in the 2009 local elections, more than 40immigrantcandidatesstoodforelection.11Atthesametime,thelevelofactivityorengagementofnon-Irishresidentshasbeenlow:e.g.,inDublinabout17%ofthepopulationareimmigrants,yetattheendof2013ofallthepeopleregisteredtovoteintheDublinCityCouncilarea,under5%wereimmigrants(includingEUnationals).

Participationofforeign-borncitizensinelectionsinIrelandseemstohavebeenproblematicinthefirstdecadeofthe21stcentury–accordingtoOECD,whereasmorethan80%native-borncitizensreported that they participated in recent elections, only between 50 and 55% foreign-bornreportedthesame.12

Giventhesedifferencesinlevelofparticipation,anumberofquestionsremainunanswered:isthecomplicated registration system the main reason why many mobile citizens do not participatepolitically, or are there other important factors at play? If yes,what are those factors? Are theinactivemobilecitizens in Irelandmore likely tobe inactive innationalelections, (not)exercisingexternal voting rights in their countries of origin? And, finally – what is to be done to improvepoliticalparticipationofmobilecitizensinIreland?

9E.Kļave(2015)Latvijasdiasporaspolitiskālīdzdalībaunpārlamentārapārstavniecība.In:A.Lulleetal(2015)DiasporaspolitiskāpārstāvniecībaLatvijāunEiropasSavienībā:parlamentāradimensija.UniversityofLatvia.10 I. Mieriņa (2015) Are emigrants less pro-social in their new community than they used to be at home? Acomparative analysis of Latvians at home and abroad. Presentation at the Center of Studies in Demography andEcology,UniversityofWashington,04/12/2015.11B.Fanning,N.O’BoyleandV.DiBucchianico(2014)InclusivePoliticsforaDiverseRepublic.UniversityCollegeDublin.12OECD(2012)IndicatorsofImmigrantIntegration2012.

6

Some suggestions for strategies outlined in other studies for improving political participation ofmobilecitizensandforeign-borncitizenswillbesummedupinthenextsection.

Whatistobedone?

AccordingtoEuropeanCommissionreportontheimpactoffreemovementofEUcitizensatlocallevel,13activitiesto improveparticipationmight include"productionofguidestoraiseawarenesson the right to vote and the votingprocess" aswell asmonitoring andanalysis that is currentlylimitedbytheshortageofdata.

Morefar-reachingproposalshavebeenmaderegardingtheparticipationofmobilecitizens:thus,theproposalforaEuropeanCitizens’Initiative(ECI)submittedbyPhilippeCaylaandCatrionaSethin2012proposednationalvotingrights forEUcitizens.Others,e.g.RainerBauböck,havearguedthat according the right to vote in national elections in the country of residence to mobile EUcitizens is not the right way to solve a democratic deficit which is created by limited access tocitizenship,andthatnaturalisationshouldstillbethemainwaytoaccessfullpoliticalparticipationrights.14

This normative approach is not supported so far by the actual behaviour ofmobile EU citizens:accordingtoOECD,freemovementofpersonsas intheEUdoesnothaveapronouncedpositiveeffect on nationality acquisition.15 Due to this tendency, more action is needed on behalf ofEuropean institutions and national governments to ensure that current democratic deficit formobilecitizensisdiminished,andtheiractualcapacitytoinfluencelocalandnationalpoliticsinthecountryofresidenceisbroughttothelevelof‘native’citizens.

Researchquestionsforthestudy

Itwould bewrong to limit our study of political participation ofmobile citizens to conventionalforms of participation, such as participation in local elections (as voter, candidate, or both). AspointedoutbyMartinello, participation in thehost country canalso include, for example, tradeunionpolitics,andthefactthatamigrantdoesnothaveconventionalpoliticalrightsdoesnotbarhim or her from having political views and being active in other ways. Martinello proposes atypology for political activity of immigrants in their host countries, dividing their activities“according to the geographic-political level of action and the level of conventionality, i.e. thecontrast between state and non-state politics”.16 For conventional participation, Martinelloproposesthatweshouldlookat:electoralturnout,electorallistsandelectedpositions(aswellasexecutivebranchpositions), the formationofpoliticalpartiesby immigrants,andparticipation inconsultative institutions for immigrants. For non-conventional participation, he identifies trade13 EY(2014).14R.Baubock(2012)EUcitizensshouldhavevotingrightsinnationalelections,butinwhichcountry?15 OECD (2015) 'Civic engagement of immigrants', in Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015: Settling In. OECDPublishing,Paris.16 Martinello(2005),page7.

7

unions,pressuregroupsandcommunitygroups‘organisedalongethnic,racial,national,culturalorreligions lines, and participation in community groupswithwider goals (either local, national orglobal)’.17

Thedichotomyofconventionalandunconventionalparticipation,however,doesnotallowtomakeanimportantdistinctionbetweenengagement(asorientation/commitmenttowardsparticipation)and actual participation patterns (conventional and unconventional practices of participation inpolitical life in the country of residence). While the conventional and unconventional forms ofparticipation proposed by Martinello can all be studied under ‘participation patterns’, it is stillinterestingto lookat levelsofengagementwithhostcountrypoliticsontheaffective level(whatMartinellodescribes as “havingpolitical views”, but in this casemore specificallybeing ready toexpresstheseviewsand/oractontheminhostcountrysociety).

Onengagementtheresearchquestionshereshouldbe:

• Domobilecitizensseepoliticalparticipationinthehostcountryasimportant?• Howdomobilecitizensevaluatetheeaseofaccess/difficultyofpoliticalparticipationinthe

hostcountry?• Arguably,inordertocomparetheextentofengagementindiasporapoliticsofthecountry

oforigin,athirdquestioncouldbeasked:“Domobilecitizensseepoliticalparticipationinthecountryoforigin(throughnationalelections)asimportant?”

Onparticipationpatternstheresearchquestionshereshouldbe:

• What is the level of participation of mobile citizens in conventional forms of politicalparticipation(localelections,EPelections,politicalparties,electedoffice)?

• Whatisthelevelofparticipationofmobilecitizensinotherformsofpoliticalactivityinhostcountry (trade unions, petitions, demonstrations, pressure groups with political agenda,etc.)?

• Whatroledodiasporainstitutions(formalandinformal)playinenabling/supportingtheseformsofparticipation?

• What roledo local/ national institutions inhost countryplay in enabling/ supporting thisparticipation?

InthecaseofmobilecitizensfromLatvia,itwouldhavebeeninterestingtoexplorethedifferencesin engagement levels and participation patterns between Latvian-speaking and Russian-speakingLatvians. However, given the small sample in the survey, there is no opportunity to study suchdifferences,ifany.Theoreticalliteraturesuggeststhatthedichotomyofsocietyoforiginandstateoforiginplaysanimportantroleindefiningpoliticalparticipationofmigrants.E.g.Zapata-Barreroet al propose to distinguish between state and society of origin, as the relationship dynamic

17Ibid.,page16.

8

betweenmigrants and their stateor societyof origin is different, aswell as the interests of thesocietyoforigindifferfromthoseofthestate.18

Finally,anothersetofresearchquestionsconcernsbarriersandenablingfactors:

• What barriers do mobile citizens identify to their political participation (especiallyconventionalparticipation)?

• Whatenablingfactorsexistforenhancingparticipation?

ThelattermayconcernfactorsinIrishsocietyandpoliticalsystem,thathavenotbeensufficientlyutilized,butalsofactorswithinnationaldiasporas.

Surveytargetgroup

The online survey of Polish, Latvian and Lithuanian citizens, living in Ireland was conducted inFebruary andMarch 2016. The questionnaire was available in four languages – English, Polish,LatvianandLithuanian.

ThepotentialrespondentswerecontactedthroughmigrantcommunitiesandNGOsinIreland.Thesurveyusedtargetedsamplingandsnowballingmethodstoformthesurveysample.Invitationstoparticipate in the survey were emailed to individual community leaders, members of NGOs,diaspora school members, posted on Facebook groups of migrants in local communities (i.e.LithuaniansinCork,LithuaniansinDublin)aswellasonbroaderplatformsofmigrantcommunities.

Demographicdata

Intotal,604respondentsparticipatedinthesurvey,ofwhich374werePolishcitizens,90-Latviancitizens(including1non-citizenofLatvia)and140wereLithuaniancitizens.19Womenweremorerepresented inthesurvey:68.9%ofall respondentswerewomen.Amajorityoftherespondentswere 26–45 years old (79.3%). Sample age structure corresponds to the general migrant agestructureinthesecommunities.

ThesurveyedrespondentslivedindifferentpartsofIreland.Thelargestpart(43%)livedinsmallormiddlesizetowns,onethird(31%)livedinthecapitalcity,18%-inlargecitiesand8%inruralareasorvillages.

18 R. Zapata-Barrero et al (2013) The political participation of immigrants in host countries: An interpretativeframeworkfromtheperspectiveoforigincountriesandsocieties.INTERACTResearchReport2013/07,23. 19ThiscorrespondstotheshareofPolish,LatvianandLithuaniancitizensinIreland(ifonetakesthisgroupasatotal,117918Poles,35817Lithuaniansand20252Latviansconstituteroughly68%,20%and12%)–Eurostat(2016).

9

Absolutemajorityofsurveyedrespondents(78%)werecurrentlyemployedandworkedindifferentsectors of economy.Of those,whowere unemployed at the time of the survey,majority (51%)weretakingcareofchildrenandhome,22%wereunemployedortemporarynotworking.

Onthewhole,thesampleofrespondentsinthesurveywasnotlargeandrepresentativeenoughtoanalysetheinfluenceofspecificfactorsortostudycorrelationswithinspecialgroups(e.g.Latviancitizens), but the survey provides descriptive data on the patterns of political engagement andparticipationamongPolish,LatvianandLithuaniancitizensinIreland.

Findings

Englishlanguageproficiency

TheEnglish languageskillsofPolish,LatvianandLithuanianmigrants in Irelandarerathergood–majorityofrespondents(morethan60%)evaluatedtheirEnglishskillsasgoodandverygood.Onlylessthanonetenth(7–9%)ofrespondentsevaluatedtheirlanguageskillsasverylow.Therearenosignificantdifferences inEnglish languageskillsamongsurveyedmigrantcommunities(seeFigure1).

Figure 1. English language skills among Polish, Latvian and Lithuanianmigrant communities inIreland.N=594(Missing=10).

PlanstoacquireIrishcitizenshiportoreturn

WhenaskedaboutplanstochangetheircurrentcitizenshiptoIrishcitizenship,aboutathirdofallrespondents stated that theyhadmadeadecision toacquire Irish citizenship. Yet, thedecisions

7%

23%

32%

37%

9%

24%

33% 33%

7%

21%

32%

40%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Verylowproficiency(1-3) Lowproficiency(4-6) Intermediate(7-8) Highproficiency(9-10)

Onascaleof1to10,where'1'meansthat"youdonotknowthelanguageatall"and'10'that"youcanspeakfluently", pleaserateyourskilllevelfor

speakingofEnglishlanguage

Poland Latvia Lithuania

10

regarding change of citizenship differed among various groups. Among Lithuanian migrants inIreland, only slightly more than one tenth (13%) said they plan to acquire Irish citizenship andmajoritystatedthattheyplantokeeptheircurrentcitizenship(63%).Thismaybeexplainedbythefact thatLithuaniastilldoesnotallowdualcitizenship,except forthosewho leftLithuaniaunderSovietoccupationbefore11march1990andtheirdescendants.20Polishrespondentsweremoreopentothedecisionofcitizenshipchange–30%plannedtoacquireIrishcitizenship,30%wereyetundecided, and slightlymore than one third of Polish respondents (36%) planned to keep theircurrent citizenship (). In Latvian group, 43% of respondents planned to keep their currentcitizenship(seeFigure2).ItisimportanttonotethatsomeoftherespondentsindicatedthattheyalreadyhavedualcitizenshipofIrelandandtheirhomecountry.ThenumberofmigrantswithdualcitizenshipisslightlyhigherinPolishgroup(3%)thaninLithuanianandLatviangroups(1%).

Future plans to stay in Ireland permanently were also flagged up in Lithuanian focus groupdiscussionsandmentionedasoneof the characteristics sharedby thosewhohadvoted in localelections.Similarly,inthesamefocusgroupparticipantswhowereplanningtoleaveIreland(foradifferent country, not Lithuania) expressed a hesitancy to “invest their time and interest in Irishpolitics”(directquoteofparticipant).

Plans toacquire Irish citizenship canbeaffectedby thedifficultnaturalizationprocess in IrelandthatwasmentionedasoneofthehurdlesofactiveparticipationbyPolishfocusgroupparticipants.

Figure 2. Plans regarding citizenship change among Polish, Latvian and Lithuanian migrantcommunitiesinIreland.N=567(Missing=37).

Onaverage,14%oftherespondentsstatedthattheyplantoreturntoliveintheircountryoforigininthenext5years(about45%indicatedthattheyplantostayinIreland).

20MigrationLawCenter.

36%30% 30%

3%

43%

29% 27%

1%

63%

13%

23%

1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

No,Iwillkeepmycurrentcitizenship

Yes,IplantoacquirecitizenshipofIreland

Ihavenotdecidedyet Ihavedualcitizenship

Inthenearfuture,doyouplantochangeyourcurrentcitizenship?

Poland

Latvia

Lithuania

11

Absolutemajority of surveyed respondents (95%) evaluated the quality of life in Ireland as verygood / rathergood. In comparison,only24%stated that thequalityof life is verygood / rathergoodinthecountryoftheircitizenship(seeFigure3).

Figure3.Evaluationofqualityof life in Irelandand in countriesof their citizenshipamong themigrantcommunities.N=567(Missing=37).

PoliticalEngagement

Inthesurveytherespondentswereaskedhowoftentheydiscusspoliticalissueswiththeirfriendsor relatives.ThesurveyshowedthatPolish,LatvianandLithuaniancitizens in Irelandmostoftendiscuss national political matters in the country of their citizenship (37% discuss such mattersfrequently)andEuropeanpoliticalmatters(24%discussfrequently).PoliticaldiscussionsregardingissuesinIrelandmoreoftenrelatetolocalpoliticalmattersofthecity/regionwheremigrantslive(20%discusstheseissuesfrequently),nationallevelpoliticalmattersarediscussedlessoften(15%discussfrequently)(seeFigure4).

Therearesomedifferencesof interest inpoliticalmattersamongdifferentmigrantcommunities.PolishcitizensinIrelanddiscussIrishlocalpoliticalmattersmoreoftenthanLatvianandLithuaniancitizens (24% Polish citizens discuss such matters frequently, compared to only 12–13% ofLithuanians and Latvians). There are no significant differences among the surveyed migrantcommunitieswhendiscussingnationalpoliticalmattersinIreland(seeFigure5).

Aboutonefifthofallrespondents(19%)indicatedthattheyneverdiscussnationalorlocalpoliticalmattersinIreland(seeFigure4).

95%

24%

5%

76%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ThequalityoflifeinIreland

Thequalityoflifeinthecountryofyourcitizenship(i.e.Poland,Latviaor

Lithuania)

Howwouldyoujudgethecurrentsituationineachofthefollowing?

Verygood/rathergood

Ratherbad/verybad

12

Figure4.Discussionofpoliticalmattersamongthemigrantcommunities.N=569(Missing=35).

Figure5.Discussionofpoliticalmattersamong themigrant communitiesby citizenship.N=569(Missing=35).

ThetendencythatmigrantcommunitiesaresomewhatmoreinterestedinpoliticalmattersinthecountriesoftheircitizenshipthaninIrelandisalsoconfirmedbythedataoninterestinthenews.Polish,LatvianandLithuaniancitizensfollowthenewsintheirhomecountriesmoreregularlythaninIreland(50%followthenewsinthecountryoftheircitizenshipatleastonceaday,37%dosoinIreland)(seeFigure6).

15%

20%

24%

37%

66%

61%

65%

55%

19%

19%

11%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

NationalpoliticalmattersinIreland

Localpoliticalmatters(ofyourcity/regionwhereyouliveinIreland)

Europeanpoliticalmatters

Nationalpoliticalmattersinthecountryofyourcitizenship(i.e.Poland,Latviaor

Lithuania)

Whenyougettogetherwithfriendsorrelatives,wouldyousayyoudiscussfrequently,occasionallyorneverabout...?

Frequently

Occasionaly

Never

12%

13%

24%

27%

19%

12%

22%

30%

16%

24%

24%

43%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

NationalpoliticalmattersinIreland

Localpoliticalmatters(ofyourcity/regionwhereyouliveinIreland)

Europeanpoliticalmatters

Nationalpoliticalmattersinthecountryofyourcitizenship(i.e.Poland,Latviaor

Lithuania)

Whenyougettogetherwithfriendsorrelatives,wouldyousayyoudiscussfrequently,occasionallyorneverabout...? Answers"Frequently"

Polish

Latvians

Lithuanians

13

Figure6.InterestinthenewsinthecountryoftheircitizenshipandinIrelandamongthemigrantcommunities.N=470(Missing=134).

In theLithuanian focusgroupparticipantsnoted that theiroverall lackof interest inpoliticswasduetothe“lackofstrongidentificationwitheitherlocation”.Accordingtooneoftheparticipants,theyare“stillseenasguestsinIrelandandalreadyastraitorsathome”.

AsimilarfeelingofbeingstuckbetweentwocommunitieswasmentionedinthePolishfocusgroup.Poles who “hope to return to Poland one day” do not feel the need to be engaged with Irishpoliticallife.

TrustinInstitutions

Polish,LatvianandLithuanianmigrantcommunitiestendtotrustIrishinstitutionsatamuchhigherlevelthantheinstitutionsintheirhomecountries.AmongthemosttrustedinstitutionsinIrelandisIrish police (67% tend to trust it) and Irish legal system / justice (57% tend to trust). Theseinstitutionsarealsoamong themost trusted in thehomecountries, yetatamuch lower level–only28%ofrespondentstendtotrustthepoliceintheirhomecountries,16%-thelegalsystem/justice(seeFigures7and8).

Theleasttrustedinstitutionsarepoliticalparties–bothinIrelandandinhomecountries.Yet,itisimportanttonotethatahighproportionofrespondentsindicatedthattheydidnotknowwhetherthey trusted political parties in Ireland (42%), whereas 38% stated they tend not to trust Irishpoliticalparties.Evaluatingtrustinpoliticalpartiesinthecountriesoftheircitizenship,respondentswerelessambivalent–87%statedthattheytendnottotrustpoliticalparties,whereasonly9%didnotknowhowtoanswerthisquestion.

Among the representative political institutions, parliaments are the least trusted both in Irelandand in home countries of surveyed migrant communities (although the differences from otherpoliticalinstitutions–theGovernmentandlocalpublicauthorities–arenotverysignificant).Again,it is important tonote, that a largeproportionof respondents indicated that theydidnot knowwhether they trusted these institutions in Ireland or not (38–42% were undecided), whereasevaluationofpoliticalinstitutioninhomecountrieswaslessambivalent(seeFigures7and8).

19%

23%

18%

27%

38%

30%

25%

20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

NewsinIreland

Newsinthecountryofyourcitizenship

Howoftendoyoufollowthenews?

Severaltimesaday

Onceaday

Regularly,butnoteveryday

Rarely,irregularly

14

Figure7.TrustinIrishinstitutionsamongmigrantcommunities.N=525(missing=79)

Figure 8. Trust in institutions of home countries among migrant communities. N=532(missing=72)

TherearesomedifferencesamongmigrantcommunitiesinansweringthequestionaboutthetrustininstitutionsinIreland(seeFigure9).LatvianmigrantstendtotrustpoliticalinstitutionsinIrelandatsomewhathigherlevelthanPolishandLithuanians.Yet,itmustbetakenintoaccountthatthe

67%

57%

43%

42%

40%

20%

18%

16%

21%

20%

18%

38%

15%

27%

38%

38%

42%

42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

ThepoliceinIreland

Justice/theIrishlegalsystem

IrishGovernement

LocalpublicauthoritiesinIreland

IrishParliament

PoliticalpartiesinIreland

HowmuchtrustdoyouhaveincertaininstitutionsinIreland? Foreachofthefollowinginstitutions,pleasetellmeifyoutendtotrustitortendnot

totrustit.

Tendtotrust

Tendnottotrust

Donotknow

28%

19%

16%

10%

9%

4%

63%

64%

73%

81%

79%

87%

9%

17%

11%

9%

12%

9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Thepolice

Localpublicauthorities

Justice/thelegalsystem

Governement

Parliament

Politicalparties

Howmuchtrustyouhaveincertaininstitutions inthecountryofyourcitizenship(Poland,LatviaorLithuania)? Foreachofthefollowing

institutions,pleasetellmeifyoutendtotrustitortendnottotrustit.

Tendtotrust

Tendnottotrust

Donotknow

15

sampleofLatviancitizensconsistedmainlyoflocaldiasporaactivistswhomightbemoreactiveonpoliticallevel–thismighthaveinfluencedthesurveyresults.

Indicative of low trust in the Lithuanian political system are comments from participants in theLithuanianfocusgroup,asformanyofthempoliticalparticipationitselfisseentocarrya“negativeconnotation”.Politicsisseentobe“adirtybusinessoverthere”(directquoteofparticipant,ibid).

Figure9.TrustinIrishinstitutionsamongmigrantcommunitiesbycitizenship.N=525(missing=79)

Effectivenessofpoliticalengagement

Thesurveyrespondentsevaluatedtheeffectivenessofparticipationinelections(voting)relativelyfavourably, namely, 40–43% stated that voting in local, regional or nation elections is veryeffective/ fairly effective in influencing political decision-making. Participation in local diasporagroupornon-governmental organisationwas also seenas aneffectiveway to influencepoliticaldecisions–37–39%oftherespondentsevaluatedtheseactivitiesasveryeffective/fairlyeffective(seeFigure10).

Itisimportanttonotethatasignificantgroupofrespondentsdidnothaveastrongopinionabouteffectiveness of different political activities, especially when evaluating membership in politicalpartyandparticipationinpoliticalcampaign–morethanhalfoftherespondents(53–54%)didnotprovideananswertothesequestions.

68%

58%

43% 40% 41%

19%

64%

48% 51%54%

43%

25%

65%62%

37%40%

36%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

ThepoliceinIreland

Justice/theIrishlegalsystem

IrishGovernement

Localpublicauthoritiesin

Ireland

IrishParliament

PoliticalpartiesinIreland

Trustininstitutions inIreland.Answers"Tendtotrust"bycitizenship.

Poland

Latvia

Lithuania

16

Figure10.Evaluationofeffectivenessofpoliticalactivitiesamongmigrantcommunities.

There were some differences in evaluating effectiveness of political activities among migrantgroups–themostsignificantone(12percentilepoints)isbetweenPolishandLatvian/LithuaniancommunitiesontheeffectivenessofvotinginEuropeanelection.Only26%ofPolishrespondentsindicateditasveryeffective/fairlyeffective,when38%LithuaniansandLatviansthoughtso.Also,slightly more Lithuanians (43%) evaluated voting in national election as very effective/ fairlyeffectivewaytoinfluencepoliticaldecision-makingcomparedtoPolishandLatvians(36%).

Otherdifferencesweremarginal(lessthat5percentdifference).

26%

26%

31%

37%

39%

40%

43%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Participatinginapoliticalcampaign

Beingamemberofapoliticalparty

VotinginEuropeanelections

Beingamemberofanongovernmentalorganisationorassociation

Beingamemberoflocaldiasporagroup

Votinginnationalparliamentelection

Votinginlocal/regionalelection

Foreachofthefollowingactions,pleasetellmeifyouthinktheyareeffectiveorineffectiveininfluencingpoliticaldecision-making? Answers

"Veryeffective/Fairlyeffective"

17

PoliticalParticipationandCivicEngagement

Polish,LatvianandLithuanianmigrantsinIrelandaremostactiveonlocallevel–especiallyinlocaldiasporagrouporganisationsandlocalcommunitygroups(aboutonethirdofallrespondentssaidthey were members of these organisations). Participation levels in religious, non-governmentalorganisationsandtradeunionsismuchlower(about10%)(seeFigure11).

There are some differences in participation patterns among different migrant groups – Latviancitizensaremostactiveinmanydifferenttypesofnon-governmentalorganisations(butthismighthave been influenced by the sample characteristics – the sample of Latvian citizens in Irelandconsistedmainly of local diaspora activists). The least active are Lithuanian citizens in Ireland –theirparticipationlevelsindifferenttypesofnon-governmentalorganisationsareratherlow.

Figure11.Membershipinnon-governmentalorganisationsorassociationsinIrelandamongthemigrantcommunities.N=504(Missing=100).

The survey results show that the Polish, Latvian and Lithuanian migrants participate in non-governmental organisations in Irelandmore actively than in their home countries. For example,about one tenth (11%) of all respondents indicated that theyweremembers of trade unions inIreland,whereasonlyanaverageof2%didsointhecountriesoftheircitizenship.ForLatviaandLithuania, this may be also explained by the relatively low popularity (and influence) of tradeunionsintheBalticStates.

The threemostpopular civicactivitiesofPolish, LatvianandLithuanianmigrants in Irelandwereparticipationincharityevents/actions(56%),signingapetition(47%)andexpressingone’sviewsonpublicissuesontheInternetorinsocialmedia(44%)(seeFigure12).

11%

11%

16%

14%

34%

38%

9%

17%

12%

18%

41%

44%

9%

8%

7%

8%

31%

29%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Sportsteam

Tradeunion

Non-governmentalorganization(i.e.environmental,povertyreductionetc.

Religiousorganization,parishcommunity

Localcommunitygroup

Localdiasporagroup(schools,culturalorganization,etc.)

Areyouamemberofanyofthefollowingtypesofnon-governmentalorganisationsorassociations? Answers"Yes"

Lithuanians Latvians Polish

18

The participation in civic activities differed significantly among surveyed migrant communities.Lithuaniancitizenswereleastactiveinmajorityofanalysedcivicactivities,whilePolishandLatvianparticipationindifferentactivitieswasfairlyhigher,especiallyinexpressingone’sopinioninsocialmedia and expressing one’s views to elected representatives on local and national levels (seeFigure12).

Polish focus group participants associated participation with local activism, and some alsoexpressedviewsthat inthissensecivicengagementshouldbeconsideredasmore important (asthe local community affects one’s daily life more directly). The participants associated politicalparticipation with activities more related to elections – “active participation in the elections,casting a vote and contacts with the politicians”. In comparison to Poland, they consider Irishpoliticianstobemoreaccessible,whichmakesparticipationinIrelandeasier.InbothfocusgroupdiscussionsPolesexhibitedacautiousattitudetoanykindofpoliticalparticipation.

AlsoLithuanianfocusgroupparticipantsregardedwidercivicengagementasmoreimportantthanconventionalpoliticalparticipation,however,duetosomewhatdifferentreasons.Theyassociatedcivicengagementwithpatriotismunderstoodasthepromotionandcelebrationofone’snationalculture and upbringing, as well as the representation of the group’s national interests. Politicalparticipationwaslinkedtoinvolvementwithpartypoliticsandelections,whichtriggerednegativeassociationsformany.CombiningthesetwoviewstogetherLithuaniansregardedcivicengagementas more important due to its connection to their identity and their desire “to remain a trueLithuanian, no matter where you are” (direct quote of participant). Most participants sawthemselves as active members of the Lithuanian community, but they stressed the “apoliticalnature of their activities” . While participants were sceptical about the concept of a singularLithuaniancommunitytheymentionedanewinitiativethataimstoconnectthemanylocalgroupsunderoneumbrellaorganization.AmongtheaimsoftheorganisationparticipantsmentionedtheadvocacyofLithuanianinterestsinIrelandandthefacilitationofcivicinvolvementofLithuaniansintheirlocalcommunities.

ParticipantsintheLatvianfocusgroupconsistedoflong-termresidentswhowereallactiveintheircommunitiesanddisplayedagoodlevelofknowledgeaboutcivicandpoliticalengagement.

AmongEU-13citizens, attitude towardsparticipationwasdivided.Allparticipantsagreed thatatleast in some form civic participation is expected of all members of society. According to oneparticipant,civicparticipationmeans“morethanjustsimplylearningthelanguageofthecountryyouarein,ittakestimetoadapttoanewculture,learnaboutyourowncommunity”.Atthesametime, some felt that calls to participate politically can feel “forced” and result in people feelingannoyed.IncomparisontoLatvianfocusgroupparticipants,discussantsfromEU-13countrieswereless engaged in community participation. While four out of five were involved with someenvironmental or sports groups or volunteered to teach English as a second language, none ofthemwereinvolvedinsocietiesorassociationsdedicatedforbringingtogethernationalsfromtheirhomecountry.Therewerea fewrespondentswho recognised thatothercommunitiesaremoreactiveandorganized,likethePolishcommunity.

19

Figure12.PoliticalandcivicactivityinIrelandamongthemigrantcommunities.N=503(Missing=101).

4%

18%

22%

23%

41%

50%

53%

57%

6%

13%

22%

16%

38%

47%

30%

58%

6%

13%

6%

10%

39%

28%

41%

49%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Holdamembership(wereamember)ofpoliticalparty

Participatedinademonstrationorpublicrally

Expressedyourviewsonpublicissueswithyourelectedrepresentativeatnationallevel(inthecountryofyour

citizenship)

Expressedyourviewsonpublicissueswithyourelectedrepresentativeatlocal/regionallevel(inIRELAND)

Participatedinactivitiesorganisedbylocalcommunity(neighbourhoodmeetings,localactions,etc.)

ExpressedyourviewsonpublicissuesontheInternetorinsocialmedia

Signedapetition(onpaperoronline)

Participatedincharityevents/actions

Haveyoudoneanyofthefollowinginthelasttwoyears?Answers"Yes"

Lithuanians Latvians Polish

20

Electoralparticipation

ThesurveyresultsshowthatonlyonethirdofPolish,LatvianandLithuanianmigrants in Irelandregisteredandvotedinthelastlocalelectionin2014.

Disaggregated data by citizenship shows that Polishmigrantswere themost active in the Irishlocalelectionsamongthesurveyedmigrantgroups–39%indicatedthattheyregisteredand34%votedintheelections.LatvianparticipationwassimilartothePolish(31%registered,29%voted),whileLithuaniansweretheleastactive–only17%ofthemregisteredandvotedintheelections.

Figure 13. Electoral participation in local election in Ireland in 2014 – registration. N=503(missing=101).

Figure 14. Electoral participation in local election in Ireland in 2014 – voting. N=503(missing=101).

32%

68%

ThelastlocalelectiontookplaceinIrelandin2014.Didyouregisterforthiselection?

Yes

No

29%

71%

Anddidyouvoteinthiselection?

Yes

No

21

Figure15.ElectoralparticipationinlocalelectioninIrelandin2014–registrationandvotingbycitizenship.N=503(missing=101).

Therespondentswereaskedtoprovideupto2reasonswhytheydidnotvote in the local Irishelection in 2014. Themost common reason, indicatedbyone fourthof the respondents (25%),waslackofinformationaboutthecandidatesandpoliticalpartiesinIreland.Thefollowingmostprevalentresponseswere“Iamnotinterestedinpolitics”(15%)and“IdonothavearighttovoteinIreland”(13%).OnetenthoftherespondentsindicatedthattheydidnotknowhowtoregistertovoteinIreland.

Mostoftherespondentschoseoneresponseforthereasonwhytheydidnotvoteintheelection(themostcommonreplies“IdonothaveenoughinformationaboutthecandidatesandpoliticalpartiesinIreland”,“Iamnotinterestedinpolitics”and“IdonothavearighttovoteinIreland”).Among those respondents who indicated two reasons for not voting in the election, themostcommon replies were: “I do not have enough information about the candidates and politicalpartiesinIrelandandIamnotinterestedinpolitics”,“IdonothaveenoughinformationaboutthecandidatesandIdonothavearighttovoteinIreland”,“IdonothaveenoughinformationaboutthecandidatesandIdonotthinkthatvotingwouldinfluencemylifeinIreland”.

39%

31%

17%

34%

29%

17%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Poland Latvia Lithuania

ThelastlocalelectiontookplaceinIrelandin2014.Didyouregister for/votein thiselection?

Registeredforelection

Votedinelection

22

Figure16.ReasonsfornotvotinginlocalelectioninIrelandin2014.N=357(missing=247).

Therespondentswereinvitedtoprovideotherreasonswhytheydidnotvoteinthelocalelections–about9%chosetodosointhesurvey.Mostcommonreasonsfornotvotingincluded“Lackoftime”,”Didnotregisterontime”and“IwasnotinIrelandatthattime/wasnotabletoparticipateintheelection”.

Survey results show that Polish, Latvian and Lithuanian citizens were more active in nationalparliamentaryelectionintheirhomecountries–44%indicatedthattheyvotedinthemostrecentnationalelection.Themostactive–as in local Irishelection–werePolishandLatvianresidents(48–49%voted),leastactivewereLithuaniancitizens(34%indicatedthattheyvoted).

Figure17.Electoralparticipationinnationalparliamentaryelectioninhomecountries–voting.N=504(noreply=100).

5%

8%

10%

13%

15%

25%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Other

IdonotthinkthatvotingwouldinfluencemylifeinIreland

Ididnotknowhowtoregistertovote

IdonothavearighttovoteinIreland

Iamnotinterestedinpolitics

IdonothaveenoughinformationaboutthecandidatesandpoliticalpartiesinIreland

Whydidn'tyouvoteintheelection?

44%

56%

Didyouvoteinthelastparliamentelectioninthecountryofyourcitizenship?

YesNo

23

Figure18.Electoralparticipation inparliamentaryelections–votingbycitizenship.N=504 (noreply=100).

Themostcommonreasons fornotvoting in theparliamentaryelection inhomecountriesweresimilartothereasonprovidedfornotvotinginlocalIrishelections–lackofinterestinpoliticsandlackof informationabout candidates andpolitical parties (see Figure19). Slightly less thanonetenthoftherespondentsstatedthereasonwhytheydidnotvotewasthatitwastoofartogoallthewaytoDublintovote.

Among the respondents who indicated other reasons for not voting in the last parliamentaryelection, most common replies were related to disappointment with politics in their homecountries:“It isnotworth it”,“Therearenogoodcandidates/politicalparties”,“Thereareonlyclowns”,“Therearenopoliticianswhosincerelycareaboutthestate”etc.

Figure19.Reasonsfornotvotinginthelastparliamentaryelectioninhomecountries.N=280*(thosewhodidnotvoteinlastparliamentaryelectionsandansweredthequestion)

48% 49%

34%

52% 51%

66%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Poland Latvia Lithuania

Didyouvoteinthelastparliamentelectioninthecountryofyourcitizenship?

Yes

No

1%

2%

6%

9%

12%

12%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Idonothavearighttovoteinthecountryofmy…

Ididnotknowhowtoregistertovote

Other

ItistoofartogoallthewaytoDublintovote

Idonothaveenoughinformationaboutthe…

Iamnotinterestedinpolitics

Whydidn'tyouvoteinthelastparliamentaryelection?

24

AmongPolish focus groupparticipants, almost all had voted in the last Irish local elections andexpressedawishtovotealso intheIrishgeneralelections.Respondentsmentionedthedifficultand costly process of gaining Irish citizenship as one of the reasons keeping them from fullparticipation. Opinions were divided on whether Polish and Irish elections should be seen asequally important or Irish elections should take priority while residing in Ireland. Participantsmentioned one period when Irish politicians had started to express interest in the Polishcommunityafterobservinghowmanyhad turnedout tovote forPolishelections,however thisinteresthaswanedsincePolesdonothavethesamelevelofinterestinIrishlocalelections.

WhendiscussingthereasonsforthelowparticipationofthePolesinIrishelections,participantsstressedthatlowengagementfromIrishpoliticiansandthelowinterestofPolishpeopleinpoliticscomplementedoneanother.Otherreasonsthatwerementionedincludedlackoftime(giventhehighwork load that Polish immigrants put on themselves), absence of Polish or othermigrantleaders thatwould be active in Irish politics, failed integration, aswell as the small number ofPoleswhoregistertovoteinthefirstplace.Oneparticipantdescribedhowthegeneralabsenceofmigrantissuesonthepoliticalagendawasalsoapartoftheproblem:

“HowmanyIrishpoliticiansaddressorevenmentionimmigrants’ issues?Thereareno immigrants present at election meetings of events (…) There is no lobby or astronggroupthatwouldbeabletoadvocatefortheissuesofmigrantcommunities”(directquoteofparticipant).

At the same time, participants mentioned examples of voter mobilization campaigns aimed atimmigrants (Dublin City Council used multilingual posters in 2009 and 2014, two main partieshiredPolishcitizenstoconductcommunityoutreach).

Inaddition,participantsinCorkaddedthatthelowinterestinIrishpoliticsisfurtherfuelledbya“distrusttowardsparticipation”andaself-seekingattitude(“whatisinthereforme?”)Theyalsoaddedthattheregistrationprocessisdifficultandthereforediscouraging,inadditionsomepeoplearealsowaryofpersonaldataprotectionissuesintheregistrationprocess.

ParticipantsagreedthatthewayforwardwastobemoreactiveinlobbyingtheirinterestsdirectlywithIrishpoliticians.

Among Latvian focus groupparticipants voting in local Irishelectionshadbeenonlyoccasional.Those who had been in Ireland for more than eight years, expressed a greater willingness toparticipate politically. Several discussants viewed voting in Ireland as a two-way relationshipbetween them and their new home – they have the right to work and reside in Ireland andthereforetheyshouldalsofulfiltheirdutyandvote.

For Latvian participants, general elections in Latvia are still more important because of theirperceivedlinktonationalidentity.Atthesametime,theyacknowledgedthatastheyareresidentsinIreland,Irishelectionsareofsignificanceaswell.

25

When asked to explain why participation in local elections is low among Latvians, the difficultregistration processwasmentioned as one of themain reasons. In addition, advanced politicalconceptsused todescribe theelectoral system in Irelandpresentdifficulties forLatvianswhoseEnglishskillsarenotsoadvanced.Oneparticipantnotedthat:“SomepeopleareratherconfusedandIkeepgettingquestionsfrommyfriendsandacquaintancesaboutthetypeofelectiontheycanparticipatein”.

WhilerespondentsmentionedsomeinitiativesthataimedtoinvolveEUcitizensinlocalelections(leaflets, TV advertisements, door-to-door canvassing), they still raised concerns about theinsufficient informationavailabletoEUcitizens inregardtotheirrightsandopportunitiestogetinvolved.InasimilarveintoPolishrespondents,Latvianfocusgroupparticipantsalsomentionedasenseoffeeling“invisible”andalsonotwelcomedbyIrishlocalauthorities.

LithuanianfocusgroupresultsweresimilartothePolishdiscussions inthesensethatanoveralllack of interest in politics was mentioned as the main reason why Lithuanians do not vote inIreland. Lithuanian participants similarly to Latviansmentioned the lack of information in theirlanguageandthelackofclarityregardingregistrationandvotingproceduresasanothersignificantreasonfornotvoting.Asfurtherreasons,participantsmentionedtheviewthattheirvotedoesnotcarryanypowerandthattheywerenotfamiliarwithIrishpolitics.

In thewordsofoneparticipant: “We’reaminorityhere,wedon’thavea strongunifiedvoice”.Thus,Lithuaniansdonotseetheirvotesasbeinginfluential.JustasinthePolishandLatvianfocusgroups, participantsmentioned that local authorities “did not take [migrants] seriously”,whichagain feeds into thenegative feedback loopbetween low interest inpolitics,a lowbelief in theefficacyoftheirvotesandacorrespondinglackofinterestfromIrishpoliticians.

Participantsagreed that theirowncommunities shouldplayamoreactive role inengaging lessactive Lithuanians so that their community would become more visible. Just as with Latvianparticipants,alsoLithuanianshighlightedtheneedforaccurateinformationonvoting.

For EU-13 focus groupparticipants, participating in theirhomecountry’snational electionswasseenasbeingmoreimportant.ParticipantsstatedthattheyhadnointerestinIrishpolitics,didnotseehowtheirvotewouldmakeadifferenceorexpressedan interest inperhapsparticipating inthenextelectionsafterhavingobservedthepreviouselection.Someparticipantsexpressed theview that given how small their national community is Ireland, their political participation andtheirvotewouldnotreallymatter.

Similar to previous focus group participants, also EU-13 citizens expressed the need for betterinformationregardingvotingproceduresforEUcitizensinIreland.

26

KnowledgeofpoliticalinstitutionsinIreland

ThesurveyresultsshowthatPolish,LatvianandLithuanianmigrants in Irelandhaverather littleknowledgeaboutthefunctioningofrepresentativepoliticalinstitutionsinIreland,especiallyaboutpolitical parties, local public authorities, Irish Parliament and Government. Almost half of allrespondents (46%) stated that they have no or very little knowledge about political parties inIreland, 43% - about local public authorities, 41% - about Irish Parliament and 39% about IrishGovernment(seeFigure20).

The knowledge about the Irish legal system and the police is higher – only 18–27% of allrespondentsindicatedthattheydonotknowanythingatallorhaveverylittleknowledgeabouttheseinstitutions.

Figure 20. Knowledge about the functioning of political institutions in Ireland. N=430(missing=174).

Thereare somesignificantdifferencesamongmigrant communities regarding theknowledgeoffunctioning of political institutions in Ireland. Lithuanian citizens in Ireland indicated that theyhaveanoveralllowerknowledgeaboutthemajorityofpoliticalinstitutionsinIreland–57%statedthat they have no or little knowledge about political parties in Ireland (Polish – 43%, Latvian –38%),54%knewverylittleaboutIrishParliament(Polish–38%,Latvian–33%),49%–aboutIrishGovernment(Polish–36%,Latvian–30%)(seeFigure21).

Therespondentswereaskedwhatmeasureswouldbemostefficientinimprovingtheirinterestinlocal politics in Ireland. Although about one tenth of all surveyed migrants (9%, in Lithuaniangroup–19%)statedthatnomeasuresshouldbe implementedbecausetheyhavenointerest inpolitics, themajorityof respondents indicated somemeasures thatwouldbehelpful. Themostpopularmeasure among surveyedmigrant communitieswouldbe explanationof one’s politicalrights and voter registration in the native language (23% chose this option), participation of

18%

27%

39%

41%

43%

46%

52%

50%

41%

42%

39%

39%

30%

23%

20%

17%

18%

15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Thepolice

Justice/theIrishlegalsystem

IrishGovernment

IrishParliament

Localpublicauthorities

Politicalparties

Onascaleof1to10,where'1'meansthat"youknownothingatall"and'10'that"youknowalot",howmuchdoyouthinkyouknowaboutthefunctioning

ofthefollowingpoliticalinstitutionsinIRELAND?

1-3

4-7

8-10

27

immigrantcandidates in localelections (16%)and informationaboutelectionsonFacebookandothersocialmedia(16%).

Figure 21. Knowledge about the functioning of political institutions in Ireland by citizenship.N=430(missing=174).

Figure22.ImprovinginterestinlocalpoliticsinIrelandbycitizenship.N=409(missing=195).

18%24%

44%

36% 38%43%

17%

26% 29% 30% 33%38%

20%

35%

48% 49%54% 57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Thepolice Justice/theIrishlegalsystem

Localpublicauthorities

IrishGovernment

IrishParliament

Politicalparties

HowmuchdoyouthinkyouknowaboutthefunctioningofthefollowingpoliticalinstitutionsinIRELAND? Answers"Noknowledge,littleknowledge(1-3)"

Polish

Latvians

Lithuanians

5%

7%

18%

14%

17%

17%

22%

6%

15%

23%

5%

17%

12%

23%

9%

14%

7%

19%

7%

15%

28%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Meetings,organizedbyelectionofficialstoexplaintheelectoralprocedureinIreland

Discussiongroupsaboutlocalpoliticsinlocaldiaspora(i.e.Polish,Lithuanianor

Latvian)groups

InformationaboutelectionsonFacebookandothersocialmedia

Nothing,IdonotcareaboutpoliticsinIreland

Meetingwithpoliticians,candidatesforlocalcouncil

Participationofimmigrant(i.e.Polish,LithuanianorLatvian)candidatesinlocal

elections

ExplanationofmypoliticalrightsandvoterregistrationinIrelandinnativelanguage

WhichofthefollowingwouldstrengthenyourinterestinlocalpoliticsinIreland?

Lithuanians

Latvians

Polish

28

There are some significant differences among migrant communities regarding interest in localpolitics–moreLatvianandPolishcitizens indicatedthat theywouldbe interestedtomeetwithpoliticians,candidatesforlocalcouncil(17%)thanLithuanians(7%).LithuanianswouldalsobelessinterestedinfollowinginformationaboutelectionsonFacebookandothersocialmedia(7%,while18%ofPolesand23%ofLatvianswouldbeinterestedininformationonsocialmedia)(seeFigure22).

Therespondentswerealsoaskedtoindicatetheirsecondchoiceofmeasuresforimprovementofinterestinlocalpolitics.Themostpopularmeasurewasagainexplanationofone’spoliticalrightsand voter registration in native language (13%), followed closely by participation of immigrantcandidatesinlocalelections(10%)andmeetingwithpoliticians,candidatesforlocalcouncil(9%).

Labourmarketconfidenceandlackoffaithinunions

Oneof thekeycharacteristicsof thesurveyed immigrantcommunities in Ireland is theiroverallsenseofbeingtreatedfairly inthe labourmarketandrelative lackof job-related insecurity.ThemajorityseemtobeconfidentofbeingpaidthesameasIrishcitizensdoingsimilarjobs,andonly15%believetheymightlosetheirjobsinthenext6months.

Figure 23. Labour market vulnerability of Polish, Lithuanian and Latvian citizens in Ireland.N=461(Missing=243)

At thesametime, themajoritydonot seeadirectconnectionbetweenunionmembershipandbeingprotectedatwork– thisdespite the fact thatmorePoles,LatviansandLithuanians in thesurvey sample are unionmembers in Ireland than in their home countries (11% on average in

15%

16%

34%

48%

49%

59%

82%

27%

17%

49%

27%

27%

22%

10%

58%

67%

17%

25%

24%

18%

7%

0% 50% 100%

Imightlosemyjobinthenext6month

Ioftenhavetoworkovertimewithoutpay

Membersofatradeunionaremoreprotectedatwork

IamwellpaidfortheworkIdo

IfIweretoloseorquitmycurrentjob,itwouldbeeasyformetofindajobofsimilarsalary

IampaidthesamewageasanIrishcitizendoingthesamejob

Ialwaysreceivemysalaryontime

Howmuchdoyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatementsdescribingsomeaspectsofyourjob?

Stronglyagree,agreeNeitheragreenordisagreeDisagree,stronglydisagree

29

Ireland, versus 2% average in countries of their citizenship). Activism, at least at unionmembershiplevel,isnotseenasdirectlybeneficialtoone’seconomicsecurity.ThismaybelinkedtolowprominenceofunionsassocialpartnersinLatviaorLithuania,althoughPolandhasamuchstrongerhistoryofcivicandpoliticalengagementoftradeunions.

ConclusionsandRecommendations

Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish citizens in Ireland have relatively sceptical views regarding theeffectiveness of political participation. No form of participation elicits confidence in itseffectivenessamong50ormorepercentoftherespondents.Havingsaidthat, it isstilltruethatlocalelectionsareseenasthemosteffectivewaytoinfluencepolitics,ifatall–43%ofthepeoplewhoparticipatedinthesurveybelieveintheeffectivenessofvotinginlocalelections.

Ontheotherhand, the interestofmobileEUcitizens in localpolitics in Ireland is relatively low.Only24%ofPoles(andamuchsmallerpercentageofLatviansandLithuanians)havestatedthatthey discuss local political matters in Ireland frequently. Interest in politics ‘back at home’ ishigher, especially among Poles. Among Latvians and Lithuanians specifically, talking aboutEuropeanpoliticalmattersismorecommonthantalkingaboutthepoliticsofthecitiesorregionswheretheyliveinIreland.(Incidentally,LatviansandLithuaniansalsohaveagreatertrust intheeffectivenessofEuropeanParliamentelectionsthanPoles–38%ofLatvianandLithuaniancitizensversus26%ofPoleshaveassessedvotinginEPelectionsasaneffectivewaytohaveinfluence).

Theactual participationofmobile citizens in local elections in Ireland is rather low. TheoverallshareofPolish,LithuanianandLatviancitizenswhoregisteredandvotedinthelastlocalelectionsinIrelandamongrespondentswasroughly30%.Atthesametime,therearesignificantdifferencesbetween communities – thus, it appears that relativelymore Poles and Latvians (34% and 29%respectively)andrelativelyfewerLithuanians(17%)votedinthelastlocalelectionsinIreland.Theresthavegivenseveral reasonsfornotregisteringandnotvoting in localelections–nothavingenoughinformationaboutthecandidatesandthepartiesbeingthemostfrequent(25%).

Onthewhole,Polish,LatvianandLithuaniancitizenslivinginIrelandbelievetheyhaveratherlittleknowledgeaboutthefunctioningofrepresentativepoliticalinstitutionsinthecountry,especiallyabout political parties, local public authorities, Irish Parliament andGovernment. About half ofLithuanians inparticular indicatedthattheyhaveanoverall lowerknowledgeaboutkeypoliticalinstitutionsinIreland(politicalparties,theParliament,theGovernment).Atthesametime,self-assessed knowledge of the Irish police and justice/ legal system is higher, as is trust in theseinstitutions–while67%of respondents trust the Irishpolice, and57% trust the justice system,only40%trust the IrishParliamentand42%trust localauthorities.Significantly, themajorityofrespondentshaveanoverallhighertrustforinstitutionsinIrelandthanfortheonesintheirhomecountry.Only28%of respondents trust thepolice in their countryoforigin,only16% trust thejusticesystemandonly9%trusttheirnationalparliament.

30

MobilecitizensbelievethatinordertoimprovetheirinterestinandknowledgeaboutlocalpoliticsinIreland,somemeasureswouldbemoreeffectivethanothers.Themostpopularoptionsincludeexplanationoftheirpoliticalrightsandtheprocedureofvoterregistrationintheirnativelanguage(23% chose this option), participation of immigrant candidates in local elections (16%) andinformationaboutelectionsonFacebookandothersocialmedia(16%).

It is also worth noting that Polish, Latvian and Lithuanian citizens in Ireland possibly choosedifferent forms of wider participation. While among the Latvian respondents membership inLatvian diaspora groups and local community groups is rather high (44%), Poles and especiallyLithuanians choose these forms of participation relatively less frequently. At the same time,slightlymorePolesreportmembershipinnon-ethnicNGOsinIreland.

Toconclude,Polish,LithuanianandLatviancitizensresidinginIrelandtendtohavegreatertrustinIrish institutions, including police and the courts, than in the institutions in their countries oforigins. They are overall sceptical about the effectiveness of political participation, but tend tobelieve that voting in local elections is more effective than other forms of participation.Nevertheless,lessthanonethirdofthemvotesinlocalelectionsinIreland.Theyexplainthislackof engagement by having little knowledge about politics in Ireland, and by a number of otherreasons.Atthesametime,theybelievethatparticipationoftheircommunitiesinIrelandcanbeimproved.

Given these responses, the following recommendations for improving the level of participationamongmobilecitizensinIrelandcanbemade:

• TheIrishpoliticalparties,theGovernmentandlocalauthoritiesshouldpaymoreattentiontocommunicating with mobile EU citizens residing in Ireland about the importance andopportunities of political participation. Where possible, this communication should beaccessiblealsointhelanguagesofimmigrantcommunities,suchase.g.thePolish,LatvianandLithuanianlanguages.

• Informationaboutregistrationandvoting in localelections inparticularshouldbepromotedmore actively, encouraging immigrant communities to use the political rights they have inIreland–notonlytovoteinlocalelections,butalsotorunforoffice.

• Local municipalities and political parties in Ireland should engage the leaders of immigrantcommunitiesandencourage themto introducecommunitymembers toelectionproceduresand party programmes. This engagement could lead to more peer pressure within thecommunitytoparticipateinlocalelections.

• Proactive approaches – not only informing, but also engaging mobile citizens in initiativesdesignedtoraisetheirpoliticalactivityseemstobethewayforwardtoensuringthatinnextlocalelectionsinIreland,moremobileEUcitizensvoteandmoreofthemrunforoffice.

• Thechoiceoftherightchannelsofcommunicationwithimmigrantcommunitiesissignificant–thus,amongtheLatviansinIreland,diasporagroupsseemtobethehuboflocalactivity,but

31

this is not necessarily true of Lithuanians. Communication strategies taking note of thesedifferencesmaybemoreeffectivethan‘onesizefitsall’approaches.

• EUcountrieswithdiasporapoliciesshouldlooknotonlyattheparticipationofmobilecitizensin national elections in thehome country, but also at their useof civic, political and labourrights in thecountryof residence. For instance,Polish, LatvianandLithuanianembassies inIreland could collect data on political participation and civic engagement of their nationalcommunitiesinIreland,andpromotetheuseofresearchtomonitorengagement.

• The European institutions can do more to monitor and encourage participation of mobilecitizens. Surveys anddetailed data collectionon voting, on local community engagement ofmobile citizens, their volunteering activities and involvement inmigrant associations wouldenablecreatingpoliticalinstrumentstoincreasepoliticalparticipationatdifferentlevelsandinvariousforms.

32

Bibliography

Baubock,R.,(2012)EUcitizensshouldhavevotingrightsinnationalelections,butinwhichcountry?http://eudo-citizenship.eu/commentaries/594-should-eu-citizens?start=1(Accessed19May2016).

DeRooij,E.A.,(2011)PatternsofImmigrantPoliticalParticipation:ExplainingDifferencesinTypesofPoliticalParticipationbetweenImmigrantsandtheMajorityPopulationinWesternEurope.EuropeanSociologicalReview.

Eurostat(2016),http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-datasets/-/MIGR_POP1CTZ(Accessed19May2016).

EYfortheEuropeanCommission(2014)EvaluationoftheimpactofthefreemovementofEUcitizensatlocallevel.Finalreport.Brussels.

Fanning,B.,O’Boyle,N.,andDiBucchianico,V.,(2014)InclusivePoliticsforaDiverseRepublic.UniversityCollegeDublin.

Fulton,L.,(2015)PolishWorkersintheUK.TheirInvolvementwithUnionsandTheirEmploymentRights.IPA,Warsaw.

Kļave,E.,(2015)Latvijasdiasporaspolitiskālīdzdalībaunpārlamentārapārstavniecība.In:A.Lulleetal(2015)DiasporaspolitiskāpārstāvniecībaLatvijāunEiropasSavienībā:parlamentāradimensija.UniversityofLatvia.

Kucharczyk,J.(ed.),(2013)Nothingaboutus,withoutus.CivicparticipationofPolesinGreatBritain,IPA,Warsaw.

MarketandOpinionResearchCentreVILMORUS(2014)SurveyofLithuaniancitizens(linknolongeravailable)

Martinello,M.,(2005)Politicalparticipation,mobilisationandrepresentationofimmigrantsandtheiroffspringinEurope.WillyBrandtSeriesofWorkingPapersinInternationalMigrationandEthnicrelations,1/05.MalmoUniversity.

Mieriņa,I.,(2015)Areemigrantslesspro-socialintheirnewcommunitythantheyusedtobeathome?AcomparativeanalysisofLatviansathomeandabroad.PresentationattheCenterofStudiesinDemographyandEcology,UniversityofWashington,04/12/2015.

MigrationLawCentrehttp://www.migration.lt/en/migration-services/dual-citizenship-in-lithuania(Accessed19May2016).

OECD(2012)IndicatorsofImmigrantIntegration2012,http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/settling-in-oecd-indicators-of-immigrant-integration-2012/self-reported-participation-in-most-recent-election-immigrants-and-native-born-populations-by-gender-2002-10_9789264171534-graph115-en#page1(Accessed19May2016).

OECD(2015)'Civicengagementofimmigrants',inIndicatorsofImmigrantIntegration2015:SettlingIn.OECDPublishing,Paris.

OECD(2015)'Civicengagementofimmigrants',inIndicatorsofImmigrantIntegration2015:SettlingIn.OECDPublishing,Paris.

33

Eurostat(2016),http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-datasets/-/MIGR_POP1CTZ(Accessed19May2016).

Zapata-Barrero,R.,etal(2013)Thepoliticalparticipationofimmigrantsinhostcountries:Aninterpretativeframeworkfromtheperspectiveoforigincountriesandsocieties.INTERACTResearchReport2013/07,23.