IMO this kind of pedantry detracts from the message. We know that the EC is pushing it, but the EC does not represent the people, that's the job of MEPs. Thus a list of MEPs from countries, colour coded by whether or not the country is known to support the position. And optionally a marker for their personal opinion if known.
> but the EC does not represent the people, that's the job of MEP
The European Council is the heads of each member state. They are literally the people elected by each nation state domestically. If they don't represent the people, then that means national democracy is broken (which I agree with in cases like the UK) but I'm making a more general point.
I wasn't talking about the council, but the commission. The acronym confusion is unfortunate.
Point is that these people are very far removed from elections and political consequences. They also seem to be the types who have no idea what "normal" people are like.
Then you have understood even less. The commission act on instructions from the council. The steer for this has come from the member states, not the commission.
So what you're saying is: countries elect politicians in national elections, some of these politicians (typically the prime ministers) form the European Council, they propose a President of the Commission, the ruling government of each country then proposes one unelected Commissioner to join that Commission.
I still think it's fair to say that the Commission does not represent the people. It is many steps removed from the people. Nobody voted for any of them.
According to wikipedia, this point of view makes me a euroskeptic. Which is not something I consider myself to be, I'm a big proponent of cooperation between European countries. But I am certainly very skeptical of unelected government officials deciding on far reaching legislation that infringes upon fundamental liberties. With zero political repurcussions or liability.
It is easy to make any argument you want when this is unscientific. But it is easy to draw a line from the elected heads to state (the governments of the member countries) pushing for this, right through to the elected European Parliament (elected MEPS). The Commission is a civil service, doing the bidding of the Council, and then proposing laws to the elected Parliament.
I can't really picture what a better structure would be. The elected member state governments should always be the ones driving policy. They need a way to get that done outside of their usual national structures and civil servants, so they create the Commission. People also want to feel represented in the final votes so we create the Parliament.
Counterpoint: The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, sits both in the European Commission and in the European Council. And it's UvdL who is the primary driving force for chat control at this point.
You're very naive to think UvdL is the driving force of chat control. If you truly believe that then there is no hope. This is coming from the member nation governments. If you want to oppose it, write to your politicians.
It's a very sad state of affairs that when Trump and von der Leyen meet to represent two of the most powerful entities on Earth, one has been democratically legitimised less than a year ago, and the other has never ran in an election in her life.
