It’s a tradeoff. It’s still democratic, as the parliament can in all these instances reject a candidate, while bringing stability by not having endless debates in a potentially fractured parliament on who should be nominated.

Because the head of state doesn’t pick someone randomly, they pick a candidate that will have the approval of the Parliament. So there is still talks, agreements, compromises with parties of the Parliament, so that the nominated candidate is a candidate that would have likely come out of weeks/months of debates and votes.

The vote that follows the nomination is a safeguard, to prevent a shitty stuborn head of state from imposing their government.

So the tradeoff is, slightly less democracy (no debate), faster government appointment (which is desirable for the good of everyone), while keeping a democratic safeguard. And it works, that’s why failing votes following the nominations are extremely rare.

Yeah, but I’d rather have the option of a government one than yet another rando company with my sensitive data :)

I don’t give a shit about Von der Leyen. I’m talking about the EU, not someone specific.

It’s actually not. Yes, the Chancellor is elected by the Parliament, but after nomination by the President, your head of state.

Per the German wikipedia article on the Chancellor of Germany:

Der Bundeskanzler wird auf Vorschlag des Bundespräsidenten vom Bundestag gewählt, anschließend vom Bundespräsidenten ernannt und durch den Bundestagspräsidenten vereidigt.

And per your Basic Law, Article 63:

• (1) Der Bundeskanzler wird auf Vorschlag des Bundespräsidenten vom Bundestage ohne Aussprache gewählt.
• (2) Gewählt ist, wer die Stimmen der Mehrheit der Mitglieder des Bundestages auf sich vereinigt. Der Gewählte ist vom Bundespräsidenten zu ernennen.
• (3) Wird der Vorgeschlagene nicht gewählt, so kann der Bundestag binnen vierzehn Tagen nach dem Wahlgange mit mehr als der Hälfte seiner Mitglieder einen Bundeskanzler wählen.

The election of the Chancellor in Germany is just like the election of the President of the European Commission: There is one candidate, either they are voted in, or they are not. If the parliament disagrees with the nominated candidate, then they must elect one themselves, yes. But it has never happened since 1949, and the only close call was Merz.

You can actually have a look yourself at the list of chancellor elections, and you’ll see that it’s always been a Yes/No vote on the nominated candidate, just like for the Presidence of the European Commission.

And this Basic Law was ratified after the miserable passage of history you mention.

The closest to the exact situation of the EU are Estonia, Germany, and Spain:

The head of state nominates a candidate for prime minister who is then submitted to parliament for approval before appointment.

Then you’ve got different, close enough nomination/appointment systems:

Italy:

The head of state appoints a prime minister who must gain a vote of confidence within a set time.

Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, the UK, Denmark, Portugal:

The head of state appoints a prime minister who will likely have majority support in parliament

Sweden:

A public officeholder (other than the head of state or their representative) nominates a candidate, who, if approved by parliament, is appointed as prime minister.

Then you have some countries close to what you would like:

Japan, Thailand, Ireland:

Parliament nominates a candidate whom the head of state is constitutionally obliged to appoint as prime minister.

Source

Note that in the case of the EU, the President of the Commission plays the role of the head of government (aka, the equivalent of what most countries call Prime Minister), not head of state. As established in my previous comments, the head of state of the EU is the European Council.

I disagree, I don’t think it should be that way. And it doesn’t make it any less democratic, what we have is literally how most parliamentary democracies work.

Oh that! I thought you meant that when they decided of how the appointment should be done, they had a vote and ignored it.

I do see how that seems like it’s a non-democratic move, but it’s not. It is never up to the parliament to nominate the President of the Commission. The Parliament has a veto power, however. The Council nominates, “taking into account the result of the elections”, a candidate. The Parliament then approves them or vetoes them.

Their is a lot of subtility to the “democraticness” of a system.

While systematically picking the leader of the biggest coalition may seem like the most obviously democratic choice… It is actually not always the case. Especially in the European Parliament, where majorities are rare. So, if the leader of the largest group (let’s say, 30%) is impopular with the remaining 70%, who would all prefer another candidate, how is it democratic to go with the impopular candidate?

That’s why the parliament has a right to veto. The Parliament voted with a majority to elect Von der Leyen, when they were all aware that Weber was the most likely candidate initially. That makes her election democratic.

Just because Weber was the likely candidate due to the election results does not mean the Parliament would have elected him in the end, and that is also a consideration when the Council nominates a candidate. As a matter of fact, he was indeed impopular with a lot of coalitions, and Von der Leyen reveived 60% of the votes, with an informal coalition supporting her that consisted of the majority of the Parliament.

I actually don’t, could you point me to sources so that I can read about it? Can’t seem to find anything about it myself.

Your comment shows a lack of understanding of what democracy is.

There is plenty of forms of democracy, and the appointment of the president of the European Commission is democratic.

It’s a form of parliamentary democracy, where the European Council, a symbolic “head of state” of the EU made of heads of states/governments of EU members, nominates a candidate, which has to then be approved by the European Parliament.

This is a democratic system very close to what is adopted in many democratic countries.

So yes, this is democratic. There is no “backroom deal”, this is just literally how a parliamentary democracy works. You elect representatives who make decisions for you, including appointing the executive.

Well then the site uses a different system that complies with regulations. I don’t see this as a problem, it doesn’t have to be the only service that can verify your age.

Honestly, I’d rather see official governmental third parties that handle ID verification and guarantee to discord and any service needing age verification that the user is over the required age. Not comfortable with sharing any sort of verifying data with private companies, even less american companies. I have to for some stuff, but… Not liking it one bit.

There is already a few countries here in Europe with an official governmental identity verification system, and I’m pretty sure age verification can be done through them. I think the EU is also working on a system covering the entirety of Europe, but not certain.

Except there is no ID/age verification when you create a Google or Microsoft account (no idea about Apple, don’t use that crap), so you’re suggesting that the “birthday” field where I can set whatever date I want should be a standard age verification method?

The only entity able to connect you in this case is the identity verification third party. The premise is that a government-backed identification system is more secure than a rando private company.

Private company asks government “hey is this user real and unique”, government replies “yes”. Private webiste does not need to know your ID. No identifying element needs to be transmitted by the government.

Of course some private companies will need more, and in that case the user, you, can grant them access to data, much like the current authentication systems using Google accounts & co.

In which case the flow would be:

• Rando insecure company asks government “is this user real and unique? I need their name”
• Government website asks you “this rando company wants to know your name”
• You accept
• Goverbment replies to rando insecure conpany “yes, user real, name is X”

That’s how it should be.

My thought exactly. Their definition of privacy is… interesting

I’m sure. So?

It’s still important to recognise Palestine as a state. And it doesn’t delay any other action.

It seems to me that the progress you see is not the progress you want, so you consider it pointless. But the truth is, it’s still progress, and it doesn’t take away from the other priorities you mention.

So, once again, I don’t understand your point.

Recognising the state of Palestine in over a month doesn’t change the urgency to let aid reach Palestinians. Of course work on that front must be done as well, and sooner than September.

I just don’t understand your point. How does officially recognising the statehood of Palestine now or in a month affect the current starvation crisis?

At the next UN assembly. It says right there in the article.

Basically France now recognises the State of Palestine, and will make it official at the UN assembly.

You can be an anarchist if that’s what you believe is best. But belittling people who don’t think like you is stupid and childish.

Luckily, they don’t own any of Wikipedia’s content, and it’s all downloadable at anytime by anyone wanting to create a mirror.