From the Economist here: Parliamentary privilege - excerpt: In fact, the above is simply to whet your appetite regarding "privileges" at a high-level and no reckoning whatsoever "back-home" (in the country that sent you where it should matter) should you step your foot in the ... you-know-what. We-the-sheeple don't know enough about what is going on in the Brussels political LaLaLand (all of "non-elected officials"); and the report here-above displays a rudimentary example of when the guillotine falls BEFORE one gets a seat in Brussels but not what may be happening after they are seated! If one were an "elected official" in the Commission perhaps behaviour might be a bit more honest and less fanciful in Brussels. If the bad-news were ever a result of an investigated news-search and was reported publicly, some sophomoric attitudes there might change radically. Which simply means - as in any country - only elected officials should be running the operational governance of the EU. (As they do in any real democracy!) Meaning further, the Brussels Commission should be disbanded and its responsibilities moved to Strasbourg. And the EU there would then need a ... uh, "President"? Which would not be that difficult if the Executive Office (Head of government) were elected by the EU-parliament - as happens in all EU countries? Time will tell - it always does sooner or later ...
The President of the Commission is elected by Parliament, just saying and the members of the cabinet, the commissioners face hearings and can be declined office. The French candidate was declined, too. Last EU election a new idea was tried, candidates running for President of the Commission. It really did not work out that well. The German candidate spoke basically just German and could only run in German speaking countries. Nobody knew him outside of his language circle, same for all the other candidates. The language barrier is a huge problem. The German guy was front runner for President after the election but could not find any traction in the council, same for all the others. France nominated von der Leyen, she got the vote of the council. She than had a rather tough sell in Parliament and just squeak by to get the necessary votes. Its a different system but still democratic.
Quite right, but he is NOT elected by a popular-referendum of the EU-voters. That difference is strategic. Meaning, more than likely, s/he's a well-known politician somewhere from a high-ranking political rank in a member country. S/he is NOT ELECTED by means of a popular-vote ... There was no fundamental reason for her rejection, from here: A shame really, because this was Dirty-Politics at the top. Her refusal was a slap-in-the-face to Macron. And I wonder if "Angela" was not behind it! Afterall, the main initiative to refuse Goulard came from Germany. And nobody, but nobody, fools around with Angela! Hmmm, debatable that proposition - for the reason just cited above. The ONLY "democratic-system" acceptable is the popular-vote (for the presidency) of the entire EU-electorate. They are still "playing games" up in Brussels. As I have said many a time, the Commission should be abolished and all its functions be removed to Strasbourg. Whereupon anybody who wants to be President of the EU can run a campaign throughout the EU in a "popular-vote". The PotEU would thus sit in Strasbourg. Yes, what the EU would then have is a "system" very much identical to the US. (And, so what! At least you would not have in Europe the American voting-manipulations of Gerrymandering and the Electoral College!) There are enough translators in the EU to make sure whatever the candidate may have to say (as a political-platform for campaigning) is adequately translated locally in each nation. Then the "people" will vote - and let's just hope Europe does not end-up with a Donald Dork as PotEU! To think that the EU-voter is too stoopid to vote in this manner is simply an excuse to maintain the "status-quo" of the Commission, which was good-enough in the formation of the EU but now it needs an Executive Head of government elected by means of a popular-vote. PS: Were this the case today, I'd bet that the UK would not be leaving ...
As I wrote, the problem with popular vote is the language barrier, how many languages would a candidate need to speak fluently, 10, 20? The UK would have left, no matter what.
One, their own. With today's technology the translating will be fairly automatic. Besides that is not the problem. The French have got very used to having news footage from the UK translated "on the go". Or German, for that matter. You see, they KNOW and understand that they are just one part of a larger body and they benefit from that fact. It's no BigBother until the EU starts interfering with local customs/desires. Which has happened upon occasion. But, people got over it because - and above all - they understood that the larger the whole economy the economically better-off than they were individually. We shall see how the British feel when their GDP stagnates or starts leveling off at an insignificant 1.2%. Time will tell. Yes, indeed. But, mostly due to the fact that the UK has not known where it's going for some time ... if anywhere. You-plural have had a fairly decent GDP-growth. But, that particular show is over. Because you-plural failed to understand from where it was coming. I can assure you, British products - from jam to Jaguar convertibles - are pretty damn expensive. You-plural are still thinking about a country that once ruled the seas and benefited handsomely from the riches it brought in from abroad. Those times are historic, and that is all. They aint comin' back. The Brits have got set their minds on the future, not the past. The past is ... uh, over and long gone. Yes, of course. Let's ...
