Get involved and vote for current issues discussed by the legislators! Your vote on an issue that is being reviewed can influence the outcome.
Get involved and vote for current issues discussed by the legislators! Your vote on an issue that is being reviewed can influence the outcome.
The EU legal framework does not provide EU-wide legal protection for the families of same-sex partners. There are still EU Member States where registering same-sex partnerships is not possible. Same-sex partnership registration is possible in 21 Member States, and entering into same-sex marriage is possible in 15 Member States out of 27.
The lack of tolerance and legal protection of people and families due to their sexual orientation runs contrary to EU values. It also carries high human and economic costs for the EU. Such policies lead to involuntary migration: LGBTIQ people and same-sex couples leave to form families in countries where their families are legally protected.
To ensure the equality of EU citizens, the EU could create a legally binding arrangement of automatic mutual recognition of official partnerships of all types and marriages of (rainbow) families within the EU.
Implementing this fundamental right throughout the EU will promote feelings of fairness, dignity, and equality among EU citizens. It will provide better opportunities for a wider range of EU citizens.
Some may argue that such a decision is a national decision by each Member State individually, to be agreed on in light of its constitutional arrangements.
An increasing number of European citizens hold dual citizenship with another EU Member State. Due to the growing geopolitical strain and Russia's unjustified war in Ukraine, some European countries are reintroducing or activating military service for their citizens. The rules of military service vary from country to country. However, holders of dual EU citizenship may be subject to military service in two different EU Member States.
Under the EU Treaties, the EU has the authority to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy. Many EU Member States are also bound by mutual defence commitments under the NATO umbrella.
This could allow young European citizens holding dual citizenship to choose to fulfil one EU Member State’s military service requirements. By doing so, they can contribute to ensuring the Union’s defence capabilities while devoting the rest of their time and efforts to strengthening Europe’s economy, innovation capacities, and civic resilience, just like other EU citizens.
It can also be argued that dual citizenship entails double privilege and hence warrants requiring a commensurate commitment to civic duties imposed by both countries. One may also argue that such an agreement would instead pertain to the remit of NATO allies.
Due to current geoblocking rules, mobile Europeans in their host countries frequently cannot access TV programmes, films, and cartoons in their mother tongue. This is characteristic not just for commercial media but also for public media outlets. Such geoblocking, in particular, is problematic for smaller languages and with regard to children for whom attractive audiovisual content is crucial for learning the mother language/language of heritage in a multilingual context and for the well-being and civic awareness of seniors with language barriers in their host country.
Cross-border access to TV programmes, films, and cartoons aired by public TV stations of EU countries should be enabled for mobile EU citizens.
Providing legal cross-border access to audiovisual content in the mother tongue/language of heritage will contribute to maintaining multilingualism as a European value in the context of mobility and improve media literacy and civic engagement of mobile Europeans of all ages.
Extended provision of audiovisual content frequently implies changes in licensing and copyright with the respective authors of the content. This may lead to an increase in production costs. In cases of smaller audiences, such as smaller languages, the cost increase may be prohibitive and lead to poorer content.
All EU Member Countries are part of the Bologna Process, which aims to develop a coherent higher education process. However, graduates of higher education institutions still face lengthy recognition procedures, related costs, and uncertainty as to whether their qualification is valid in another EU Member State where they wish to work or continue their studies.
Since 2021, Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg) and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) have agreed on the automatic mutual recognition of higher education degree levels. This means that anyone who has earned a higher education degree covered by the
Treaty in one of these countries is guaranteed that the level of their degree will be automatically recognized in the other countries.
Such automatic arrangements should be extended across the EU.
This measure will facilitate a more competitive job market in the EU and remove cumbersome administrative procedures for individuals. Graduates – mobile Europeans – will avoid lengthy recognition procedures and related costs when working or studying in another EU Member State.
A uniform standard of higher education has not yet been achieved in the EU. Although all EU Member States are part of the Bologna Process, the award of academic degrees is a national prerogative and there are traditional differences that have not been overcome.
Same-sex couples may not always have the right to bring their spouse with them when moving to an EU country. It is up to each Member State to decide whether it will allow or recognize same-sex marriages or partnerships. Even if a same-sex couple is legally married in one EU country, it might not be recognized as spouses in another EU country, thus limiting their rights. The EU and its Member States should implement Article 6(2) of the EU Treaty that requires Member States to treat same-sex couples equally to opposite-sex couples.
Implementing this fundamental right throughout the EU will promote feelings of fairness, dignity, and equality among EU citizens. It will provide better opportunities for a wider range of EU citizens.
As same-sex partners and their marriage are still a sensitive issue, imposing these regulations on individual Member States can be used by populists to influence local politics adversely and alienate countries from the EU.
Many Europeans who reside outside their country of origin (diaspora) assemble in civil society organisations - diaspora associations. These associations help EU mobile citizens to maintain their linguistic and cultural heritage, to strengthen civic participation and facilitate cooperation with their country of citizenship or heritage - all while settling in the host country and enriching its cultural diversity.
Yet their contribution to European civic space is often overlooked due to their natural focus on national communities. For instance, existing EU funding programmes are tailored for cross-national activities and organisations, thus making it difficult for diaspora associations to attract EU funding for their core tasks.
A tailored programme for funding European diaspora associations would acknowledge the importance of diversity for EU integration, and strengthen these organisations and their contribution to the European civic space. This would be particularly important support for diaspora associations which assemble expats who are not supportive of Euro-sceptic policies of certain EU governments.
It could be argued that the EU funding should not support national associations and activities, this being rather the remit of each Member State.
New residents of an EU country must exchange their driving licence for a host country licence if their licence is lost, stolen or damaged, or if they commit a traffic offence. After 2 years of usual residence, they must exchange their licence if the host country requires it. However, some people prefer to keep their original licence for practical reasons such as frequent travel or planned permanent return to their home country. They should be able to choose whether to renew their licence in their home country or the host country, especially if they face language barriers or have other considerations related to age or disability.
To simplify the recognition of driving licences between EU Member States, the Commission has proposed the introduction of a digital driving licence.
The digital driving licence will be easier to replace, renew, or exchange since all procedures will be online. It will also be easier for citizens from non-EU countries with comparable road safety standards to exchange their driving licence for an EU one.
The procedures to obtain the driving licence might differ among the EU countries, and a unified system may require adjustments in individual EU countries.
European citizens living outside the EU/EEA and Switzerland face problems when they visit their host country for healthcare and are not covered by their EU country of origin’s social insurance due to residence abroad. It can be difficult and expensive to take out private insurance, especially for people over 70 years of age who live in third countries. Europeans in some countries may be left without care if they do not have private insurance that covers it.
For example, this is a big problem for Swedes living in Thailand. Thailand has become the first ASEAN country to require private health insurance that covers healthcare and outpatient care at a certain amount for expat pensioners who apply for an annual visa and extension of their residence permit on an annual basis. Because health insurance, which also covers risks resulting from previous medical history, cannot be obtained for pensioners and others, this becomes very problematic.
One solution could be for EU countries to negotiate agreements on social and health insurance with these third countries to create mutually agreed rules about access to healthcare.
If the EU negotiates with third countries collectively and covers all EU nationalities living there, it could help create better and more consistent rules. A centralised approach would make the process simpler for both EU and third countries, which could lead to faster results.
Social security rules and healthcare coverage for citizens living outside the EU vary across EU countries. This makes it hard to find an EU-level agreement, and some nationalities may see their benefits reduced.
Teleworking has become more popular since the Covid-19 pandemic. However, different EU Member States have different regulations for teleworking, which can be burdensome and complicated for cross-border teleworkers and their employers. This could be addressed if the EU agrees on common simplified rules for all EU Member States about cross-border teleworking, including tax and social coverage.
The European Economic and Social Committee also recommends that a one-stop shop could help simplify cross-border teleworking. It would require the employer to report the number of days teleworkers worked in their country of residence and in the country where the employer is located for cross-border teleworkers, and then allocate levies for the employee to the appropriate recipient country.
This arrangement will facilitate the flexibility of the job market in the EU. Simplified teleworking rules will ease access to a high-quality workforce, boost numerous businesses, and increase their international competitiveness.
Insufficiently developed agreements and institutional differences between EU countries may lead to tax avoidance and other types of fraud. In the case of widespread teleworking, it may lead to decreased state income and less ability to implement the obligations of states towards their citizens.
Currently, citizens of EU Member States do not have a unified document that identifies them as EU citizens. To solve this, national ID cards of Member States can be supplemented by a unified EU card. For example, one side of the card is a national ID card, and the other side is an EU citizens ID card with the respective ID information.
The existence of such a card can simplify a wide array of administrative functions, such as:
- The right of access to emergency health care in case of an accident (i.e., your blood group) when travelling in the EU.
- Proof of personal and family status to facilitate the process of claiming permanent residence in another EU Member State.
- A European-wide social security number to facilitate the rapid verification of social security rights and medical insurance.
- Proof of professional and academic qualifications to facilitate their recognition.
- Easy access to the signature of European citizens’ initiatives, petitions to the European Parliament, and e-voting in European elections.
Such a card can gradually evolve into a personalized key for access to diverse services throughout the whole EU, such as healthcare, social security, voting, banking services, and employment formalities. It may be used to prevent identity theft and authorities may use it to fight the crime.
Every mandatory personal document that is issued by authorities can be used to exert additional control over the personal liberties of a person.
In 2022, the European Parliament (EP) has proposed to elect European Members of Parliament (MEPs) through transnational electoral lists. Out of 705 MEPs, 28 would be elected from the transnational lists to form a European constituency, with geographical balance ensured between small, medium and large countries. You would vote as usual for candidates from your own country to send to the EP, but you would also be asked to choose from a transnational list headed by the candidate for the President of the European Commission. Your views matter because, so far, there has not been enough consultation with the voters or attempts to test this reform.
This proposed reform could be a step towards the Europeanisation of EP elections, which are frequently criticised for focusing mainly on domestic political considerations and less so on the EU project as such. This could also be a step in developing the European public spheres so European voters can (eventually) express their preference for a candidate for Commission President.
Transnational lists may also help to build the political arena, as they would oblige European political parties to present themselves to citizens with a single political programme and pool of candidates.
The proposal could be perceived as complicated by ordinary people, who are used to voting in a certain way, focusing on national candidates. The reform has by no means unanimous support even in the European Parliament. Transnational lists are criticised for potentially increasing the distance between voters and their representatives, as MEPs elected through transnational lists would not have a bond with a constituency, and for the difficulties surrounding the organisation of a European electoral campaign in different languages and a large territory.
The voting age in the EU varies from country to country. Currently, only five EU countries - Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece and Malta - allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the elections for the European Parliament. Discussions about lowering the voting age are ongoing in various Member States. The EU can facilitate this discussion.
Young people should have more say in their future, and their involvement will increase their engagement and awareness about politics. Part of the younger people are working and paying taxes, and their non-involvement in elections contradicts the principle of “no taxation without representation.
People at 16 years of age may not have sufficient competencies for responsible voting and can be manipulated more easily as their cognitive development is still ongoing, and they have less life experience.
In the majority of EU countries, dual citizenship is allowed. Nevertheless, in several Member States, acquiring national citizenship automatically leads to the loss of the citizenship of the country of origin. This is an obstacle to naturalization and frequently causes numerous administrative hurdles, especially for families of mobile citizens with several nationalities.
Currently, the procedures for acquiring citizenship differ depending on where you come from, historical factors, the type of ties you have with the country, and the length of time you have been resident, which can vary between 5 and 12 years. There are also differences in costs and citizenship tests. Few mobile Europeans undergo the naturalization process due to these hardships.
A unified approach to dual citizenship will increase mobility and international competitiveness in the European job market and other areas, such as higher education quality. It will decrease bureaucratic hurdles (“red tape”) for mobile EU citizens.
Dual citizenship may lead to conflicting situations in cases where legal and tax requirements in both nations differ, and individuals must comply with all these requirements anyway.
In the 2019 European elections, only an estimated 10% of mobile citizens voted in their country of residence and 20% voted in their home country. This reflects the view that partial political rights are insufficient in a true democracy. Many European citizens would like to vote not only locally but also for the city or region with which they identify. For example, most of the 3.7 million EU citizens residing in the UK and 1.3 million British citizens residing in the EU were unable to vote in the 2016 referendum that decided on BREXIT.
As long as European citizens cannot vote either in national elections where they live, they are made to feel like foreigners. They abide by laws that reflect how others have voted, despite paying their taxes. Voting in all elections will facilitate a sense of belonging and encourage mobile citizens to learn about the local political situation.
There is a strongly held view that the right to vote should be linked to citizenship, especially in national elections. An argument against voting rights in national elections for mobile citizens might be that many mobile citizens do not plan to remain in the country and intend to leave it after studies or work agreement ends. They will vote for policies that will remain while they leave.
EU citizens have the right to vote in European Parliament (EP) elections in their Member State of residence (even if that is not their Member State of nationality). Yet, many barriers to exercising this right still exist. These include lack of accessible information, burdensome registration processes, and the effects of deregistration in the Member State of origin. For example, France allows expats as the only group of the electorate to vote online to choose their legislators.
Online voting could facilitate the participation of mobile EU citizens in EP elections since they could vote from home instead of having to go to a polling station. They could easily get information in their own language, instead of having to navigate through registration procedures and voting information at the polling station in the language of their country of residency.
Academic studies show that the introduction of online voting does not guarantee an increased turnout. In one of the few countries where online voting is a reality - Estonia- this has not really materialised. Moreover, e-voting requires a lot of resources committed to the system's reliability, in particular, to secure the vote and to verify identification.
Support us, so more good things can happen
DonateNGO "Sabiedrības Līdzdalības Fonds"
Please, support Open2Vote.eu! Choose how you want to donate:
