[fosk]

The Commission refused to withdraw the proposal after Parliament rejected it, leaving it on the table. The Council disagreed with Parliament’s rejection, formally forcing a second reading.

Both the European Commission and the Council itself are not DIRECTLY elected EU bodies. Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto.

[aosaigh]

Again, sources?

[fosk]

Parliament rejects the proposal: https://oeil.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/en/procedure-file/pdf?r...

Council pushes it forward: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026...

From the last article: "The Council position will now be examined by the European Parliament, under second reading.". Note that this is technically accurate under absolute majority rules for rejection (not for approving), but practically is where the "cheating" happens - as described in my original parent comment - because of the perverse procedures of the EU that are designed to basically make it almost impossible to go against the agenda.

The Commission did not withdraw it: no source because it stayed "pending".

The EU procedures are maliciously designed against the Parliament while preserving the technicality of plausible deniability. How do we call this architecture in software? We call it a "backdoor", except this one is embedded in the EU legislative process.

[munksbeer]

The EU Council are the democratically elected leaders of the member states. How is them deciding the direction not "democratic"?

[fosk]

The Council of the European Union - that pushed this forward - is composed of national ministers that are directly elected to the Council itself and are simply there because they are appointed as ministers under their own country's constitutional system. Ministers are appointed, not elected.

Unlike the European Parliament which is directly elected by EU citizens. Conveniently, the EU citizens have been silenced on this matter despite the Parliament denying this full proposal not once, but twice.

[gls2ro]

> Ministers are appointed, not elected.

I dont understand this line of reasoning about EU:

Ministers are appointed by people we vote. In most democracies the entire government is appointed and maybe indirect voted as a whole (by parliament and maybe directly by citizens).

What I am trying to say is people who proposed this are representatives of those countries (even if indirect their citizens votes vor the party that appointed them).

So representation is not the problem. The problem is citizens (at large) voting only on personal interest and not thinking or not understanding the second order effects. If you don't like what Council did here make sure next round of elections the party that proposed those ministers will not get elected in your country an should not have the power to form a government.

We seem to expect country officials to be even better when playing at EU level and think about yet a greater good than they are doing in their own countries.

[rayiner]

You don't have effective representation just because a vote happens somewhere in a causal chain. A body that's appointed by people who are themselves typically indirectly elected is a lot of layers of indirection.

For effective representation, you need a feedback loop between the voting and the policymaking at the other end. If you add all these layers in-between, voters are going to have a hard time figuring out how their voting is actually changing outcomes. Imagine trying to play a video game that has huge lag between the control input and what the character on screen is actually doing.

[munksbeer]

The design of the EU which gives the member states elected politicians (heads of state) the most power is very intentional.

[munksbeer]

This is a bizarre argument. Emmanuel Macron sits on the EU Council. He has no democratic mandate?

The entire point of the EU design is that ultimately the member states national governments (the heads of) are the most powerful and set the direction. It was done this way because people didn't like the idea of EU ministers. There was even a huge objection to the change that introduced the Parliament, the MEPs that you are now saying should hold ultimate power.

And this is the problem. People decide up-front that the EU is "not democratic" and then they adjust their arguments and data to fit this narrative.

[fosk]

The EU Council and the Council of the European Union are two different bodies.

Macron sits in the EU Council and it has nothing to do with this.

[burnerRhodov3]

it's more like a .. asymmetric confederation. Democratically elected leaders, conspire together in a confederation, to elect a body that is above and beyond the leaders of the democracy. I honestly don't think we have a proper label for what the EU [edit* council] has become. If you are looking at it from the OP's perspective, it's more of a "democratic deficit." It is an institutional design that prioritizes efficiency, expert consensus, and national vetoes over direct voter control and transparency.

[munksbeer]

> Democratically elected leaders, conspire together in a confederation, to elect a body that is above and beyond the leaders of the democracy.

Sorry, what are you talking about here?

The Commission is subservient to the EU Council. The EU Council consists, by design, of all the heads of the nation states.

[fosk]

False, the Commission is an independent EU institution.

[doikor]

The council is the prime minister or president (depending on the system). The commission is the government. The government mostly does what the PM/president tells it to do.