No, I'm not referring to the speaker of the EU parliament, I am referring to the president of the European Commission, which is right now Ursula von der Leyen. She was appointed by the EU parliament and not democratically elected.
The EU leaders makes things as confusing as they are able to, in order to be able to do what they please without the population understanding much, but she (von der Leyen) is very much promoted as being a "real president", acts like a "real president" in foreign affairs. It is only when pointed out that they are not democratically elected that people start making excuses that the EU president is not a "real president".
Which way is it? I think the rulers of Europe want to have it both ways, so that they can smoothly direct their subjects as they please.
IMHO that would be perfectly fine on its own (or do you think that any parliamentary state is not a "real democracy"?).
But the problem is that she was appointed by the Council/National governments and the parliament just rubber-stamped their pick. If the relationship between the Parliament and Commission were the same as between the parliaments and governments of other countries it would be perfectly fine.
> "real president"
You clearly don't speak French? What's a "real president" anyway?
Also if we go that route you do know that the e.g. German, Italian, Greek etc. "presidents" are also not elected directly?
Nominated by the Council and appointed by the Parliament. No, it is not real democracy. It is "representative democracy", at best. And I believe Europeans are defending this system just out of the human habit of defending status quo. If it was arranged anyway else, they would argue that was the best. If the EU had presidential elections by popular vote, do you think anybody here would argue that those should be scrapped for parliamentary appointment?
Europe doesn't have the strong traditions of freedom and individualism. The tradition is collectivism and people accepting that they are to be ruled over, without that bothering them too much.
"There is no "President" of the EU in the US sense of the word." <- This statement by a previous commenter is what I'm referring to when writing "real president". No, I don't speak French, and this conversation hasn't been in French.
The EU leaders makes things as confusing as they are able to, in order to be able to do what they please without the population understanding much, but she (von der Leyen) is very much promoted as being a "real president", acts like a "real president" in foreign affairs. It is only when pointed out that they are not democratically elected that people start making excuses that the EU president is not a "real president".
Which way is it? I think the rulers of Europe want to have it both ways, so that they can smoothly direct their subjects as they please.