I fully agree that these decisions have to be done by democratic institutions. They also have to be very liberal and very careful and erring on the side of not taking things down.
My biggest problem however is the EU commission acting like they are a democratic institution.
The president of the commission didn't even run in the election. We were promised that the candidate of the winning party would become president of the commission, but then he didn't and they gave us von der Leyen instead, who never really accomplished anything but hiring consultants. And even that she couldn't do right.
The whole storming the caption hill thing is also funny in that regard. Now we suddenly defend that place as this important symbolic institution of democracy, and how dare they! But in reality, we all know that the people in there spend most of their time sucking up to their donors to stay in power. And we know that they very, very, very often make decision that favour their donors to the detriment of the ... voters.
I think your comment gives the misleading impression Von der Leyen was not elected at all. So for readers who may not know the system:
Von der Leyen's appointment, and the EU Commission, were both subject to approval votes by MEPs of the EU Parliament, who are elected by EU citizens in all member countries using proportional representation.
> On 16 July 2019, European Parliament took a vote on the proposal by the European Council and elected Von der Leyen with 383 votes (374 votes needed).
> The Commission was approved by European Parliament on 27 November 2019, receiving 461 votes, with 157 against and 89 abstentions.
State governors are not voted, but chosen by the state legislatures: EU countries' prime ministers
Replace senate with a meeting of state governors: European Council, Council of EU
Replace president with a commission of 50 presidents (EU: 27), one from each state, chosen by the state legislature, not by elections: EU Commission
State legislatures are voted as normal (but proportional voting, not FPTP). The US house of representatives is voted as normal (again proportional voting). But the house can't propose new legislation, only approve or decline proposals from the senate and the commission.
> She was not elected by the voters. The voters were told that the winning party's candidate would be the commission president. Now von der Leyen is. She did not run in the election.
Well, this is true for prime minister posts in most parliamentary democracies. The winner is not the leader of plurality-winning party, but one who can get majority support in parliament.
Usually it is the same person, but EP is too disintegrated for that (many small parties with only token loyality to party blocs), so plurality winner failed to get majority support. Had MEPs forged majority coalition, they would have rejected EC offer and have forced their commission president.
This argument doesn't work very well because even in Parliamentary systems there is good clarity as to what people are voting for.
Your arguments is resting on technicalities, but not on the realities of awareness and participation of voters.
Boris Johnson had a questionable first phase as PM due to his inherited position, a lack of confidence - so - there was an election. Not only did everyone in the UK know who they were voting for in terms of individual leadership, but very much in terms of policy. It was also an 'issue election'.
The affirmation of 'Boris to complete Brexit' was clear, democratic and decisive (however people may disagree with the result).
Voters clearly 'had their say'.
The EU does not have any such relevance in terms of issues, ideology, leadership, policy, participation, regulatory clarity, which makes it's democratic credentials kind of questionable.
They do some good work though, it's just going to be a problem when the are at odds with the people.
Edit: I should add, the fact there was no public awareness at all of Von der Leyen - there was no opportunity for scrutiny, press inquisition, background awareness - is obviously problematic from a democratic perspective.
Exactly, von der Leyen could never have won a fair election, because she was involved in a scandal around illegal contracts for consultants - in any proper election, someone with a recent scandal like, particularly revolving around spending public money I'm a wrong way, would be toxic and no party would even run them as their candidate.
The double paradox is, despite my lack of faith in her democratic credentials, and that I often disagree with her ... for the most part I actually like her. I think she's actually well suited to the job - her handling of Brexit was right on the line I think.
That may have a lot however to do with the fact that she probably takes a note of notes from Merkel ... which was maybe the point of her appointment in the first place.
The handling of Brexit was another affront to the EU parliament: they negotiated so long, that the parliament couldn't vote on it. It has now been ratified by the member states, and the parliament only gets to vote after the fact.
Did you now, that the MEPs didn't get to read the contracts for the vaccines the EU bought?
Taking notes from Merkel btw. is not something I see as a good thing. Her flip-flop on nuclear power, the messed up renewable energy transition, the complete and utter failure in digitalization all around, especially schools, cum-cum and cum-ex, her running every single election on asymmetric demobilisation ... I'm not a fan.
UK is bit of special case, as although it has parliamentary system, because of single-member districts it gravitates to two-party situation with clear winners. That is rarely case in other countries, where PM often depends on fragile coalition formed after election.
> This is a lot more similar to the electoral college making the losing candidate president than people want to admit.
Not really comparable, as Von der Leyen and Weber, the denied spitzenkandidat were from the same party. The fact is that the spitzenkandidat system is not an official rule, it's just an informal agreement that the previous legislature managed to strongarm the european council into accepting for Juncker.
I agree with you that some kind of political reform to have a more representation union would be welcome, but your interpretation of this event is a bit overblown.
"You voted for A a long time ago over there, who appointed B over here, who supported C up there, who finally backed D - the leader you never heard of - so it's all very democratic!"
Von der Leyen was not elected in any reasonable sense of the term.
Voters went to the polls without knowing who she was, or her platform.
They thought they were effectively voting for someone else.
They were told that the 'deal' was that so-and-so would be the victor - but at the last minute after the election the people with power changed their minds and changed norms, and in a completely untransparent backroom deal - they chose a different leader.
The President of EU Commission is a bad example of positive democracy and it's almost impossible to justify on those terms.
It is what it is unfortunately, I'm not sure what the right answer is, but the current situation isn't near perfect.
As for the statement - it's reasonable that there should be regulations - but the EU leadership shouldn't make such bold edicts: "You cannot do this, you must do as we say" - not a good way to start. They don't have this kind of legitimacy.
They should position it as: "We don't believe corporations should be making these decisions without a framework provided by the people of the EU, so we'd like to work with them to provide some regulatory leadership"
But the key in my comment is the precondition the government is truly "of and for the people", and thus any moderation they did benefited "the people", and not the government which likely holds more power than the people.
What happened with Trump was that he convinced his followers that it was OK to only get their information from the places that agreed with him, de facto making anything he says the only trusted source of information. This is the essence of political censorship. By taking away competing sources of information, you can basically write your own rule book, because those that only hear from you couldn't fathom a different reality.
Information needs to survive the competitive landscape and emerge as valid. Information that isn't put through the wringer should not be trusted.
I don't think the EU is (or would ever) propose that these decisions be made on an EU level; generally this kind of stuff, e.g. GDPR, requires each individual state to set up their own regulatory agency implementing the standard EU-wide rules.
> My biggest problem however is the EU commission acting like they are a democratic institution.
You have a valid note on the lack of democracy in the EU commission. But about the topic at hand, both Merkel (Germany) and Macron (France) have directly expressed this same opinion about Twitter, as the EU commission. And Merkel and Macron have more direct democratic leadership mandate, than the EU commission.
My biggest problem however is the EU commission acting like they are a democratic institution.
The president of the commission didn't even run in the election. We were promised that the candidate of the winning party would become president of the commission, but then he didn't and they gave us von der Leyen instead, who never really accomplished anything but hiring consultants. And even that she couldn't do right.
The whole storming the caption hill thing is also funny in that regard. Now we suddenly defend that place as this important symbolic institution of democracy, and how dare they! But in reality, we all know that the people in there spend most of their time sucking up to their donors to stay in power. And we know that they very, very, very often make decision that favour their donors to the detriment of the ... voters.