It seems to me that the main issue is that it’s hard to figure out how to vote in the elections you are eligible for.
The author states that he couldn’t vote [in the national elections] a single time when he lived in The Netherlands for 13 years, plenty of time to gain the nationality. Apparently there was no intention to immerse themselves so deeply in Dutch society while still wanting to have a say about what happens in said society…
I’m of the opinion that they’re right that it’s too hard to register for voting and figuring out all the different systems when moving. This should be more unified and simplified accross the EU. I also think it should be much easier for EU citizens to change nationality when moving to another EU country. However, we cannot ignore that the EU is not a federation, it consists of separate nations and nationality is much more than just a registration of where you live.
German citizen, I was always able to vote in local and EU elections in Ireland. Fair, it did annoy me not to be able to vote in the general elections there, but I was able to request mail-in ballots for general elections in Germany online and got them in time.
I agree with the author that we should not have different rules and requirements across the EU. Voting requirements should be aligned across all member states. At the same time, we should not use bureaucratic hurdles as an excuse to not vote. If you move somehwere new, inform yourself and plan accordingly. This is important stuff.
I can’t even get citizenship in my new EU country without giving up my original country EU citizenship.
That’s something I really hate and think should end.
EU countries citizens should always be able to hold each other’s citizenships.
I could not agree less.
You can’t spend most of your time in more than one country. I think multiple citizenship is absurd and being a citizen of a country you’re never in is even weirder.
If you want to live in a country longterm, you should be a citizen there. Vice versa, if you don’t live in a country long-term, you shouldn’t.
And I say this as someone who was birth-loopholed into three citizenships. It’s frankly absurd that I can vote in countries I visit maybe every other year.
It seems like this is one of the few things the EU should adopt from the US.
We have US citizenship, but state issued birth certificate, and our (super flawed) social security numbers are state based too.
But residency determines which state elections we vote in and that’s defined as where you get your mail and spend the most time.
You only get one primary residence and that’s where you’re allowed to vote.
I’m sorry you can’t conceive of being intimately connected to more than one place at a time.
Primary residence is a thing. It’s where you spend the most time in a year and therefore where the local politics will affect you the most.
Otherwise you can get billionaires going to dozens of countries to vote.
That’s just not really related. Billionaires aren’t a reason to disenfranchise tax paying workers. They’re also a tiny group of people and they don’t consider their influence in light of a single vote, but in the power of money.
It’s a question of what’s local. For the nationalist, your City is local. My position is that for a United body like the EU, the state I live and work in is local.
Why?
Not trying to be an ass, just curious about your reasoning
I love both countries. One I’m in primarily for work. I’ll never give up the citizenship of my birth country, visit at least twice a year, and will return there to retire.
So while I do love my work country, and am raising my son here, we can never participate in the national electoral process, even though we’ll be here for 20+ years.
It’s about empowering workers. We have the freedom to live and work across the EU. They will happily tax me based on residence, but I’m not represented at the national level, which does affect me as long as I live here.
It’s not a balanced system for the populace.
this is just brexit arguments restored with LHD and yellow headlights
Have you actually read the article?
The idea that Europeans willfully gathered into a union to support each other financially is antithetical to the article. The idea of the EU is that Europe gathers and helps pay for each other to have better safer lives.
That not only implies that some nations’ citizens will pay for others that is the point of the EU in its entirety.
Europe gathers and helps pay for each other
The EU is first of all an economic union, not a social democratic union. The payment for the latter is just there to weaken the opposition to the former. It will become a political union, but people have to stay alert to make sure that lives will remain safe.
I feel like I’ve read a completely different article
