Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

This essay is intended to explore the trajectory of EU citizenship, under pressure from forces inside and outside the EU. The focus of the discussion is on three issues: the autonomy of national citizenship laws in the face of EU citizenship; the citizenship consequences of Brexit; and the choices made and actions taken by individuals and groups that may impact upon the future of EU citizenship. This discussion is prefaced by an initial exploration of the challenges and complexities of EU citizenship and of the relationship between citizenship and concepts of integration and Europeanisation.

Should being European in Europe not entitle you to have a say in the way the part of Europe in which you live, work and pay taxes is governed? EU nationals have the right to vote in European and local elections, wherever they live within the EU. Should they not also be entitled to vote in national elections even if they reside in an EU nation other than their home country?

I will be happy if Philippe Cayla’s and Catriona Seth’s proposal for a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) on national voting rights for EU citizens is successful. But I will not sign it myself. I agree that there is a serious democratic deficit in the current regulation of voting rights. It is contrary to the spirit of EU law if EU citizens who take up residence in another member state lose fundamental rights as a consequence of exercising their right of free movement. And it seems particularly perverse that they retain their rights to vote in local and European Parliament elections but can lose the more significant franchise in national elections. The question is: which country should be responsible for letting them vote and under which conditions?

I agree with Rainer Bauböck on his starting point. It is indeed contrary to EU law if EU citizens who take up residence in another member State lose fundamental rights as a consequence of exercising their right of free movement. But I fully disagree both with his argumentation and his proposed conclusion which are rather disproportionate with the problem to solve.

As rapporteur of the European Parliament on electoral reform, I strongly support the launching of this ECI, and will sign it. Wider legal and political action will surely be necessary at the EU level. And changes to both the primary and secondary law of the EU cannot be obstructed forever.

The proposal of this ECI by Philippe Cayla and Catriona Seth is a welcome initiative addressing a problem that has already been highlighted by the European Commission, namely, that some ‘second country nationals’ (SCNs) lose their entitlement to vote in the national elections of their state of nationality without having acquired the right to vote at this level in their state of residence. This chapter critically considers a number of possible rules for resolving the legitimacy deficit identified. It tests them against three criteria: best fit, easiest adoption and lowest costs.

Rainer Bauböck’s contribution struggles hard with a non-existing problem ignoring the fact that those who have little interest in the state of residence would obviously find it nonsensical to participate in the political life there. Knowing this leaves open the question whether it is worth superimposing the people’s judgment with a state-mandated one. If people are free, societal ties cannot depend on state mandated blessings.

The European Citizens’ Initiative proposing the extension of voting rights for resident non-national EU citizens to all elections in the host state is an important and timely initiative. The EU struggles with the challenges posed by the question of ‘who should vote in which election where’ because it is nestled somewhere between the ‘truly’ federalised polity and the ‘purely’ intergovernmental association. The creation of EU citizenship and the remodelling of the treaties according to the ‘Lisbon’ schema do not provide a definitive normative answer to the question of how voting rights should be organised within this mixed polity in which the states remain significant actors. At the same time clearly the practical consequences of the exercise of free movement demand some sort of response – from the EU institutions and from the member states – to the ‘democratic wrong’ (as Owen puts it) that arises because many of those who exercise their right to free movement end up, in one way or another, being disenfranchised in relation to all of the elections not covered by Article 22 TFEU, unless they choose the often costly and cumbersome route of acquiring the citizenship of the host state or are lucky enough to have the citizenship of one of the member states which impose no conditions upon the exercise of external voting rights.

A key feature of the very idea of Union citizenship which, as a political scientist, I find can be lost in the predominantly legal analysis of this topic, is the reliance of citizenship rights, including those associated with Union citizenship, on politics in general and the state – in this case the member states – in particular. It is this political context that makes voting rights such an essential part of citizenship, yet one, given the complexities and peculiarities of the EU’s political system, that raises a number of difficulties in the European context. The Initiative raises a key issue but proposes a misguided solution, at odds with the very nature of the EU. For it overlooks how Union citizenship necessarily presupposes member state citizenship.

In my opinion legislation on political rights of non-citizens immigrants should be guided by three principles: (a) no taxation without representation, (b) the longer an immigrant is resident in a country, the harder it is to justify his exclusion from political rights only on the basis of his nationality, and (c) once voting rights have been granted to non-citizens for municipal elections there are no serious principled arguments against extension to parliamentary elections. The second principle qualifies the first principle. Tourists and seasonal workers pay VAT, but that does not necessarily qualify them for voting rights. They should, however, have at least some other political rights, such as the right to demonstrate or the right to strike.