> 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.
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.