So the commission or random EU MEP would be affected after 5 years or so.
Tim Cook would get backlash from stockholders the moment he announced he wanted to stop getting EU revenue rather than comply with regulations.
This was not a vote along party lines, all big European parties voted in favor, so nobody who matters can credibly campaign on an anti-DSA/DMA platform, so the issue is unlikely to become politicized to the point where it might influence careers.
European Commission is nothing else than an unelected government controlled by a parliament like it happens in most countries.
Also, ultimately, the commission is nominated by elected representatives of each country so, depending on how you see the thing, we could even say that they are more democratically nominated than most governments.
The only major difference between EU and most countries is that the parliament don’t have legislative power.
This is because the main difference between the EU parliament and a country parliament is that the average European has only a vague inkling of who their MEP is, what groups or parties exist in the EU parliament, and how they stand on issues.
People do not (generally) change their vote for a MEP because they did good/bad in their last term, they change their vote because they agree/disagree with the national party they represent.
But I agree with you that this idea of an undemocratic EU is rather false and really dangerous. Everyone feels like this because nobody understands that the commission don’t represent the interests of their country but those of all the European countries which few people are capable of naming years after school.
So it has no power
> that this idea of an undemocratic EU is rather false and really dangerous
Of course it is false and dangerous. Any disturbance in lobby money, flowing to the corrupt, unelected politicians, is false and dangerous. /s
It is as (un-) democratic as the American Presidency, considering the Electoral College.
Yet you never hear complaints about the EC from the same types that love to rally against the Commission.
> The European Parliament has legislative power in that the adoption of EU legislation normally requires its approval, and that of the Council, in what amounts to a bicameral legislature. However, it does not formally possess the right of initiative (i.e. the right to formally initiate the legislative procedure) in the way that most national parliaments of the member states do, as the right of initiative is a prerogative of the European Commission.[7][8] Nonetheless, the Parliament and the Council each have the right to request the Commission to initiate the legislative procedure and put forward a proposal.[9]
What is your conclusion from this? What point do you want to make? Don't leave your readers guessing.
In modern politics, and history, a parliament is a legislative body of government.
The purpose of a parliament is to make decisions about what the law says. Something that cannot decide what the law is, is therefore not a parliament. The EU Parliament isn't really a parliament.
To be clear, I’m absolutely not against the European Parliament having legislative powers but that would require the UE to become a federation and we are still far from this.
You're thinking of EU Directives, which have to be transposed into national law by some deadline. EU Regulations (e.g. GDPR) are considered legally enforceable all on their own, though still have a delay.
> Something that cannot decide what the law is
Good thing the EU parliament decides what the law is, then.
It's not.
> It can only acquiesce to or slow down the Commission's decisions.
That's not all it can do.
I know the names of the leaders of all parliamentary groups in my country, and how the groups stand on all positions. I have no idea who such leaders are in the EU parliament, or how they stand in e.g. the upcoming changes to GMO regulations.