The Commission consists of the Member States. So obviously they are also voted-in parties since the government of the Member States is democratically elected
Once removed even from that, the E.C. second level democracy is beyond a farce.
I mean nobody argues that the FED governor is voted in, right? In reality a lot of people argue that they're unelected and yet making decisions that affect everyone.
It's good that both the US Fed Reserve Governor and EC appointees didn't have win popularity contests to get there.
If you don't like how you are represented at the commission, then blame your government. It is THEIR representative - not yours.
Also, don't forget that the commission as a whole needs to be approved by a vote at European Parliament - i.e. by the directly elected representatives.
I hope you agree that elected representation isn't perfect - there is going to be disalignment, ways in which representatives resemble each other more than they resemble their voters.
This disalignment can only get amplified with every layer of indirect election. It never gets better.
I totally agree with what you say about elected representation - but I am also thankful that decisions aren't made through direct democracy given that so many people are often dangerously uninformed and easily manipulated.
Sometimes a government only cares about a few citizens, or in some cases one citizen.
Any introduction to democracy explains that the power is separated in the executive, the legislative and the judicial.
The European Parliament is suppose to be the legislative body but can't initiate legislation.
The Commission is suppose to be the executive, but, somehow can also initiate legislation and is not elected directly by the citizens. And the council that, I suppose would be the equivalent to a senate, is not directly elected by the citizens.
And we could talk about how all the important decisions are done in the dark, or how, like in this case, when something is not 'correctly' voted, they just keep bringing it back until it pass, or how they have started to 'sanction' people without judicial supervision.
It's time to open the eyes, because this is not going to improve. The EU 'democracy' is a joke.
The European Commission is formed of representatives of the individual states. They are NOT representatives of the citizens, other than by proxy.
YOUR government can request that THEIR representative raise or support legislation among the commission. If you have a problem with your countries representative at the commission then take that up with your government.
Proposals being "brought back" for discussion in some form is just a part of legislation. It happens EVERYWHERE - not just at the EU level.
Sanctions are proposed through the commission because it is a consensus of state government foreign policy.
How would YOU propose that the EU work to be "more democratic" - while also considering that your government needs to be involved and influential?
The whole idea with the current structure is that it "meets in the middle" between national sovereignty and citizen representation.
I agree it's not a perfect system, and there is certainly a lot of opportunity for positive change (I would like to have some process for parliament to request legislation from the council. I would like more transparency in what the commission does), but to dismiss it as "undemocratic" makes no sense and is just repeating an uniformed rhetoric.
You probably think that, because the commission is composed by representatives of every country, but they are "bound by their oath of office to represent the interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state". That in itself is already contradictory. Those representatives are not elected officials but are the more powerful in the system.
The European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union. In not sane system, the executive branch is in charge of proposing legislation, because that make the all 'separation of powers' concept useless.
>>"How would YOU propose that the EU work to be "more democratic" - while also considering that your government needs to be involved and influential?"
Well, or you give the parliament real legislative and budgetary powers or all the system is a farce and you should dissolve it. If you want to keep the interest of individual countries in the process you need another chamber, elected by the people, that would represent the national interests.
Not only the system is undemocratic but it's winning power. The European Council can sanction you because doesn't like what you are saying without any judicial supervision. The budget is used to blackmail countries that don't agree with the commission views. Even the European Central Bank was used for blackmailing Greece in the Debt crisis of 2011. If that's democracy, the word democracy has not meaning anymore.
Wouldn't that make it a government and remove the sovereignty of the individual states?
Not saying thats a bad idea - its just the exact opposite of the usual "undemocratic" rhetoric.
If you are interested in a federation, you could have an American bicameral model, with the senate representing the countries interest (1).
The current path of the EU is, in my opinion, very worrisome. The important issues are decided in close doors. The Commission and the Council feel that they can 'sanction' citizens without judicial supervision. The countries that not play along are blackmailed. The Commission officials feel that they can speak for all Europe when most citizens disagree with what they are saying. They feel that they can block the public discourse that they don't like, and now they want total control of our communications.
Also countries can not be blackmailed enough as the Hungary debacle clearly shows.
Can you give concrete examples of these "important issues" that are supposedly being decided behind closed doors?
What sanctions are you talking about that require judicial supervision? Pretty sure all EU states can issue their own sanctions without needing a court to approve them.
How exactly is the Commission blocking public discourse? What are they doing, and where is this happening?
Both represent the interests of themselves, the unelected bureucracy, and the elites.
So a law:
Starts with member states directly elected ministers pushing and agenda or the council (again elected) agreeing to push an agenda -> Commissioners take this agenda and work with it to propose law (using EU civil service like any other country does) -> The law then gets voted on by the EU directly elected ministers, who are meant to (and do) represent the people of the states more directly.
Everything in that step is as democratic as any other nation (or nearly).
Most people really don't understand the EU - and yes, it is confusing. This unfortunately makes it easy for certain interests to weaponise this misunderstanding. I've spent years (and years) explaining these concepts, but ultimately like any other argument, this is not a debate from logic, everyone has already made up their minds on emotion or ideology and nothing will make a difference.