Edit: Corrected my error.
Do you ... not know what a parliament is?
And a parliament is not necessarily a democratically elected body, historically they weren't. The EU parliament is though.
https://the-president.europarl.europa.eu/en/the-presidency/f...
There is no "President" of the EU in the US sense of the word.
BTW parliaments were not democratically elected historically, that's true (eg women didn't get the vote until recently) but not relevant today.
Not really. The commission president is certainly (not even remotely) the equivalent of the Speaker in the British parliament (maybe a slightly closer in the US).
Not even Prime Minister would be a real equivalent since the commission isn't appointed by the parliament and it has relative very little say in what the commission does. In certain ways it's not fundamentally that different from some of the pseudo-democratic European states in the 1800s where the job of parliament was only to rubber stamp the laws written by the appointed government (of course there is no equivalent of the King/Emperor).
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?
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.
It's pretty much a joke, it can't propose any legislation since it doesen't really control the "EU government". The could be a majority in the EU parliament that would support passing specific legislation and they couldn't do anything about that, not even have an actual vote.
How did that competition between private companies work out for US hath system? Are Americans getting better bang for the buck? Are they getting faster internet at home due to competition between ISPs? Are Americans getting more paid vacation days due to the private market competition between employers? Why didn't competition between auto makers result in more efficient and less polluting engines until the EPA and EU forced them in the 80's? Did competition between food manufactures got them to eliminate lead and arsenic from food or was it government regulation that did it?
Competition existing doesn't automagically prevent or fix monopolies, duopolies, price fixing and other anti-competitive behavior from private entities who have the power to shape the market in their favor. Do you know why all those things are illegal even in the US? Because they work. If it wouldn't work it wouldn't have been made illegal. Private entities can much more easily collide to screw over consumers than consumers can collectively unite to do anything about it themselves. That's why governments and regulations exist.
Companies collude to eliminate competition all the time. Or use tactics that make competition impossible.
And don't use violence? Give me a break. Even small scale companies like Wizards of the Coast sent the fucking Pinkertons after someone for possessing a magic card. You think Amazon is out here existing violence free? You think Nestle's suppliers are making chocolate without any violence.
Take off the rose colored glasses.
As aside, it's a common misconception that the EU acts to protect EU companies from outside competition. They don't. It's a side-effect of their mission to keep the EU a free market.
Or a modern day example: https://ccrjustice.org/bowoto-v-chevron-murder-and-torture-n...
Define violence.
You may look at this and think "What are you, stupid?" But stick with me for a bit. Let's grab a few examples of free market atrocities. Asbestos; thalidomide; hexavalent chromium; fossil fuels (and hiding research since the 60's about climate change); the sugar industry (also famous for it's scientific gaslighting); Purdue pharmaceuticals, Oxycontin, and it's coincidental treatment for opiate addiction which was in the pipeline...
Now lets grab a few definitions of violence and see if we can bucket some of these into them without too much trouble.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/violence
Definitions numbered top of page to bottom. Are there any acts that fit the word violence that companies regularly do?
Take a look at # 7, quoted here:
7) Injury done to anything which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; violation.
Companies do that all the effing time. In point of fact, it's practically their reason to exist at all. The corporation was initially formulated as a risk-impact distribution tool. That there is risk associated with it, implies an understanding that the vehicle can do harm.And before you go saying "but that's not the legal definition..." I'm going to head that off with a single word, "Yet", and further seal off the wiggle room by referring you to the practical outcomes of all these allegedly non-violent exercises of corporate power; the scarring for life if not termination of of life by the thousands to million. You don't get kill counts that high through acts of human artifice, and still get to hide behind the bulwark of "but it wasn't violence" a kill via indirection is still a kill. a life ends or is irrepairably harmed. While their is a practical lenience extended based on the matter of human imperfections and inability to know everything, be everywhere at once; with technology, nowadays the old platitudes tend to ring a bit hollow. Where executives can literally sit on event streams created by their corporate systems; where reports that unequivocally say "bad shit'll happen", and it gets buried instead of escalated for the consideration of all; and to what end? To what benefit are these atrocities committed at the expense of the common good? The self enrichment of the few, and consolidation of wealth and power.
That my friend, is inarguably violence. That doesn't even require the 4th sense of violence either.
noun. Distortion of meaning or intent.
There's no part of this that is good. Other than as a huge monopoly, they can afford to be huge on R&D, just like Bell. They still fail to make money on anything but ads, though, so it's not turning out as well as Bell.
Sure, other search engines can theoretically compete, but it is an enormous mountain to get enough data to be competitive... and just being "as good" is not enough to get people to switch. So without regulation, google is going to exploit a captive market.
It'd be perfectly fine for Google to allow choosing your own maps provider, or just using geo:// URIs so whichever maps app you've got installed handles location links.
Through laws and treaties we've given the EU the duty to enforce this.
I believe even if Apple had chosen Bing instead most people would have changed the search engine back to Google.
Just like with maps. Most people I know use Google maps on their iPhones even though it has been replaced as default map app a long time ago.
If that is true then I guess Google really has too much money.