ABSTRACT. Now that Romania is a full member of the European Union, does the Romanian citizenship mean what it meant 10 years or 20 years ago? Now when increasingly talking about a multicultural citizenship, of minority rights, now that Romanian citizen has acquired a new status, that of European citizen, does he still feels strongly linked to the Roman state? Let's not forget, however, that at the status of European citizen, a person comes only through the citizenship of a Member State of the Union and that they must respect, above all, state of citizenship laws and regulations, state that can independently determine the rules by which a person acquires the status of citizen, of course respecting the rules of international law opposable to it.
Keywords: citizenship, European Union, European citizenship
Citizenship is now criticized in the name of the future, of the values of multiculturalism and opening to others - the proclaimed value of modern individualism - being considered obsolete. No one condemns the principle of formal citizenship, called republican in France, but some now consider it insufficient and ineffective. Debates on how we should adapt it to modern or postmodern society, so that it can be effective, are included in the exercise of citizenship. It is perfectly legitimate to ask questions about ways of organizing or about citizenship additions that should be made to give it full meaning and true effectiveness.
Until now, citizenship was national; likewise, the institutions that organized it and put it into practice were national. But as a subject of history, nations have grown weakened. How can national citizenship and European citizenship be harmonized? Does European citizenship can mean only an extension to Europe of national citizenship or must they have a different nature? Societies today are more open and more diverse than once - or at least that's the general impression, and face a series of claims, unknown to past generations, because the cultural rights of certain groups of population need not be allowed to depend on individuals in the private sphere, but publicly recognized. How can this be done without re-discuss the freedom and equality of individuals that, as experience shows us, must remain an imperative? Finally, last question: modern society increasingly organize around a more economical and social project and mainly less political. Unemployment, not human rights are core campaigns. How should we rethink political and individual citizenship for it to effectively organize collective behavior in open societies of the world where economy plays an essential role?
Why citizen and citizenship have become, in recent years, words so widespread that they turned obsessive? It is obvious that they name a problem of our destiny, equally individual and collective. These words invite us to understand, to reflect on what allows us to live together, on common values in the name of which we're trying to resolve rivalries and conflicts
National citizenship was formed within the national public space, characterized by the three clearly defined powers (executive, legislative and judicial), by the relationship between state and civil society, between government and opposition. Instead, European democracy is too complicated. It brings out a strange mixture of principles, practices and structures diplomatic federalist, subsidiarity and institutional pluralism, the coexistence of Community law with intergovernmental rules, all in an overall composite difficult to explain. The Ordinary citizen is confused by the fact that while national governments remain strong and very visible, nation states still accept the decisions of supranational institutions that limit their sovereignty. Although while still in school, he learned that citizenship has got legal existence only within its own state, the citizen must accept that there is a body of European rights and protection tools that apply directly, to the full federal logic. …