- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
A 22-year-old German politician who secretly served in Ukraine’s army now faces expulsion from the pro-Russian Alternative for Germany party after calling his own leadership “Russia-kissers.”
Would you say the EU is democratic? It’s the one thing they got right, that the EU is undermining democracy. The European Commission are representatives of representatives. Van der Leyen was a backroom deal.
Do you know Von Der Leyen is working on a new independent satellite system Eutelstat en IRIS to replace starlink and help ukraine? It was her proposal. Ursula von der Leyen doing a lot of great things for Europe make no mistake. I honestly don’t care about her pfizer gate, because thats how negotiations work in politics. It cant be all transparant because why show all your cards on first hand… Thats not how that business works. I think she handled it well. She’s also working to make Europe less dependent on oil and gas, but to rely more on green energy sources. Plus we have multiple parties representing different groups in the EU. Instead of having only 2 or 4 like in the US. Plus we investing in science and universities, climate, or own independent software and satellites… So yes we doing good under Von Der Leyen imo.
Plus she is a woman on the top, which is such a good example for little girls to see how far they can go in life which I am here for.
Ah yes we were wrong all along. Corruption is actually good when a woman does it.
If you argue like that then we only need a king because there were kings who did great for their country.
It’s a great mistake to ignore the lack of democracy just because the wrong people point it out.
You need an argument for why the commission is still democratic, not just a list of benefits, no matter how good. Otherwise you confirm that it is not democratic.
@plyth@feddit.org
What would be a democratic role model for Europe? How would you improve Europe’s democratic system?
Totale Rückverdummung
With just having read the summary, I would be happy with the limited role that the Heritage foundation suggests.
The Europe of regions sounds also interesting.
I think we need a debate that is expected to last years to come up with a good system. There are reasons for the current structure that are still valid. We can keep going for a while, but we should keep in mind that the influence of the public was minimized.
A quick improvement could come from adopting the fediverse for the EU. It should be easy for citizens to participate in debates.
This is exactly what right-wingers in Europe (and China and Russia) are aiming at. This is backward-oriented and has nothing to do with democracy.
Why would a scaleback to national states not be democratic? They were democratic in the past.
Too susceptible to outside influence. These would be American/Russian/corporate puppet states.
America supposedly has become a Russian puppet state. Size is helpful but not essential. If people give up democratic power they will be ruled by whomever controls the European Commission. Having informed voters is much more important than size.
There are a lot of reasons, but as you refer to the Heritage Foundation as an institution to develop democracy, I’m afraid you either wouldn’t understand or you are arguing in bad faith.
I didn’t. I was talking about their suggestion. I hope you are not arguing in bad faith.
Your comment shows a lack of understanding of what democracy is.
There is plenty of forms of democracy, and the appointment of the president of the European Commission is democratic.
It’s a form of parliamentary democracy, where the European Council, a symbolic “head of state” of the EU made of heads of states/governments of EU members, nominates a candidate, which has to then be approved by the European Parliament.
This is a democratic system very close to what is adopted in many democratic countries.
So yes, this is democratic. There is no “backroom deal”, this is just literally how a parliamentary democracy works. You elect representatives who make decisions for you, including appointing the executive.
Ah yes, is that why she also insisted in having a literal flat IN the commission’s building, where she enjoy extraterritoriality and the belgian police cannot search there?
Very democratic lmao
I don’t give a shit about Von der Leyen. I’m talking about the EU, not someone specific.
Do you remember that the parliament was supposed to select the candidate but they changed it back after everybody had voted? It was within the legal framework but against the spirit of democracy.
I actually don’t, could you point me to sources so that I can read about it? Can’t seem to find anything about it myself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Weber
Haven’t found it mentioned on her page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen
Oh that! I thought you meant that when they decided of how the appointment should be done, they had a vote and ignored it.
I do see how that seems like it’s a non-democratic move, but it’s not. It is never up to the parliament to nominate the President of the Commission. The Parliament has a veto power, however. The Council nominates, “taking into account the result of the elections”, a candidate. The Parliament then approves them or vetoes them.
Their is a lot of subtility to the “democraticness” of a system.
While systematically picking the leader of the biggest coalition may seem like the most obviously democratic choice… It is actually not always the case. Especially in the European Parliament, where majorities are rare. So, if the leader of the largest group (let’s say, 30%) is impopular with the remaining 70%, who would all prefer another candidate, how is it democratic to go with the impopular candidate?
That’s why the parliament has a right to veto. The Parliament voted with a majority to elect Von der Leyen, when they were all aware that Weber was the most likely candidate initially. That makes her election democratic.
Just because Weber was the likely candidate due to the election results does not mean the Parliament would have elected him in the end, and that is also a consideration when the Council nominates a candidate. As a matter of fact, he was indeed impopular with a lot of coalitions, and Von der Leyen reveived 60% of the votes, with an informal coalition supporting her that consisted of the majority of the Parliament.
There is a LOT of misinformation about how the EU works, all pushed by bad faith actors trying to undermine the EU because together we are a threat to their influence.
Bad actors like the DW?
https://www.dw.com/en/german-defense-ministry-illegally-wiped-phone-data-of-ursula-von-der-leyen/a-51764162
Do you remember that they put the focus on the candidates because from that election on they were supposed to be taken?
The point is not that the largest group has to be taken but that the parliament itself should choose the president. The current modus was acceptable when the EU had no power. Now the EU can create regulations that become law.
I disagree, I don’t think it should be that way. And it doesn’t make it any less democratic, what we have is literally how most parliamentary democracies work.
Can you name such a country please? I only know countries where the head of government is either elected directly or chosen by parliament.