Remember: "the EU is founded on core values including respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights."
No doubt we'll keep on giving lessons about these to non-EU countries anyway.
The US. The EU is a bureaucratic institution, not a democratic one, and arguably doesn't have more legitimacy than its current bureaucrats at any time. At this time there are 0 people worth talking about in the Commission or the council.
Despite the flaws of its president, the US has democratic checks and balances
> The US. The EU is a bureaucratic institution, not a democratic one,
The US has a democratic system where the President is ultimately voted for by an unelected electoral college who can refuse to vote for the candidate their state voted for and has ended up with the candidate with most votes loosing.
Then said president can change the countries top court on obviously political lines and re-interpret existing laws and the constitution.
> At this time there are 0 people worth talking about in the Commission or the council
The European Commission has no need to play popularity contests, it's accountable to the heads of governments, not randoms on social media.
The US doesn't have popular voting system. There are good reasons for it, and in no way does it make the US non-democratic.
I don't particularly like the Electoral College - but the history and the cases when members voted against the people are interesting and in some (many?) cases, examples of checks and balances.
Checks and balances don't always align with your desires. That's a feature of democracy not a failure.
> The US doesn't have popular voting system. There are good reasons for it, and in no way does it make the US non-democratic.
Presumably if my votes counted a million times more than yours, you wouldn't say it's still a democracy, right? The extreme here is obviously a single ruler whose vote counts more than everyone else's combined. Where do you draw the line here?
You are saying, if it’s not direct popular vote, it’s not democratic. Germany and the US are then no democracies by this standard, and I am sure there are much more. I believe UK also not.
That’s your definition, but then I’d like to understand what you call these form of government and how you differentiate from a country like russia, which is also holding elections.
The way you phrase it is very binary: either a country has popular vote or it’s the same as the least democratic countries.
> The way you phrase it is very binary: either a country has popular vote or it’s the same as the least democratic countries.
No. I merely pointed out that we have two extremes and that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and thus asked where the parent commenter draws the line. That's it. I never suggested anything about where I believe the line should be drawn.
Not sure what line that is. The line after which one decides to leave the country? But the voting system of country rarely changes. Or is it the line separating the good from the bad countries? In which case, yes, it’s reductive and manichean.
The line at which you would stop feeling comfortable calling the country democratic. Again, I'm not judging, just asking a direct question, so no need to put other words in my mouth.
Many states now have "faithless elector" laws that require the electors to vote according to the populace's expectations of how the elector will vote in the college.
> Checks and balances don't always align with your desires.
Sure, but that's not the issue with current US administration, and it's dishonest to say that.
The issue is that checks and balances are literally, indisputably, being ignored. Ignoring court orders and doing illegal things is bad, actually. When Jackson defied Congress we at least had the decency to try to impeach his ass.
The current US administration is not only grossly incompetent and unqualified, as seen by the signal scandals, but they're also openly hostile to the democratic institutions of this country.
The EU actively engages in selecting and canceling heads of governments in EU countries. There has been 0 cases where the head of the commision was held accountable for something. Actually the current head has been found guilty by the EU court for hiding text messages. Who is going to hold her accountable and how ?
I m all for the EU but defending its despicable leadership with arguments that reverse reality is not doing any favors to anyone
These two are questions asked by what I can infer members of the parliament. They are not official statements of the EU Parliament. Anyone can ask any question but that does not make it true.
Can you explain why you linked to these two links?a
"Thierry Breton, the European Union’s former internal market commissioner, admitted in a French TV interview at the end of last week that the Romanian Constitutional Court (CCR) bowed to EU pressure. It annulled the country’s presidential elections last month, following the first-round victory of the Eurosceptic and anti-NATO, right-wing populist candidate, Călin Georgescu."
Where does he says the CCR bowed to the EU pressure? I followed the link that says _admitted_ and there goes to a Romanian website and they make a similar claim but as far as I can see he talks about applying the laws to protect against interference and not about making CCR decide something.
A link to other website that also does not provide any evidence is not evidence even if it looks like a citation.
> It annulled the country’s presidential elections last month, following the first-round victory of the Eurosceptic and anti-NATO, right-wing populist candidate, Călin Georgescu.
You mean the fellow who illegally received undeclared external foreign funding? More concretely, from Russia, a declared state sponsor of terrorism?
Didn't the current president of the US say that his 2016 election was stolen and triggered an insurrection, and then proceed to pardon those who attacked democratic institutions? Isn't he now seeking to dismantle all the checks and balances, all while doing crypto dumps, enabling him to receive money from undisclosed sources?
This is your democratic reference?
> At this time there are 0 people worth talking about in the Commission or the council.
What's with the cult of personality? Why do you need someone worth talking about? For example, everyone talks about Trump for all the wrong reasons, does that mean that's worth it?
It just sounds like you don't know much about the EU.
Trump will leave office in 2028 just like any other US president. The only difference between now and then is extreme polarization all over the world because a lot of emerging problems.
I am originally from Russia and I cannot read this seriously. Yes, there are problems in US democracy. But it still works and LIGHT YEARS ahead of what you can see in Russia. Those comparisons with Nazi Germany and other oppressive regimes are just insane. They devalue words, and you just won't find the right ones when shit really hits the fan.
I am also from Russia. Since this apparently gives me authority to speak on these matters, I can confidently say that what’s happening in the US today looks remarkably like Putin’s consolidation of power. How long until Congress is nothing more than an executive rubber stamp like the Duma? The judicial system is currently functioning as the only check against executive overreach, and it’s just a matter of time until injunctions are nullified or ignored as a matter of course.
I agree it’s not light years rather normal years away from Russian political system. Maybe not 5 years, but lets say 10-15 years of this shit and the US will look a lot like Russia (from a government form perspective). If Vance takes over after Trump, we will miss Trump I have a feeling.
But I am not from Russia, though part of my family is. I guess I am then only a half expert ;)
> Trump will leave office in 2028 just like any other US president.
Trump has been openly playing with the idea of a third term, and has spoken about ways of achieving this. What makes you so sure he will leave office in 2028?
> I am originally from Russia and I cannot read this seriously. Yes, there are problems in US democracy. But it still works and LIGHT YEARS ahead of what you can see in Russia.
I don't understand where you're getting the idea of comparing with Russia, Nazi Germany or other oppresive regimes. I asked the question about what other countries and organizations are in a better position to lecture about democracy.
Acknowledging that the USA is currently in an institutional and democratic crisis doesn't mean they're Russia; it means they're on the wrong trajectory.
> Trump has been openly playing with the idea of a third term
Because Trump is just a blabbermouth. Sorry, but people are just indoctrinated from both sides. You can check prediction markets and see the real odds of Trump not leaving the office. Yep, there is a chance, but IMO it's around 5% max.
> I don't understand where you're getting the idea of comparing with ...
Yes, I understand that US has democracy crisis. And so has the Europe! The problem is that there are no longer healthy examples in the world, except maybe smaller countries. Democracy as a thing is dying, but US are still holding the torch IMO.
This is a common debate tactic from Trump supporters and it just doesn't work. If your evidence for Trump being okay is that he's actually a liar so we shouldn't take threats seriously, that doesn't speak well on Trump. And, actually, it reflects very poorly on you. Why are you supporting someone who you knowingly admit is a liar? Why is your support founded on the assumption that what you're supporting will not be implemented? It makes no sense. It makes other's question your decision making abilities.
But, more to the point, much of what Trump has said and done has been downplayed until it actually happens. We can't just play pretend and cosplay Hellen Keller here. The insurrection, project 2025, these things are real and did actually happen. Despite being downplayed repeatedly. I mean, every Trump supporter on Earth has been calling Project 2025 anti-republican propaganda (but it's written by and for republican leadership?), and now that many part of it are being implemented verbatim - surprise! - it's what everyone wanted all along.
We cannot continue to downplay and underestimate this administration. They will do illegal things, they will threaten democracy, they will ignore court orders. If we cannot comes to terms with that reality, then we have no choice but to allow them to do these things.
There's been plenty of indications that's not true. Trump has been floating a third term and a Trump regime with his children. He said the election was stolen. He tried to steal it himself. You are basically saying "Well TODAY the United States is fine!" but if you look at the trendline Russia is basically still shit, and we now have an insurrectionist as a President whose spending a significant portion of his time destroying American institutions as far beyond repair as he can.
The checks and balances are there. But they don't always "check and balance" the way you want them to.
Same in the EU. In this very comment section there are people abdicating to the courts, saying they'll block this proposal. The EUs checks and balance also work slowly and not always in your favor.
I find it odd that one needs to live in more than one country to be able to make a judgment on the use of the adjective better.
But I'll take the bait, let's say someone who lived in Syria during the Assad rule and then changed to the US, will that person come to that realization?
Any institution that does not kill thousands every year:
Annual Deaths (Recent Years):
- Mediterranean Sea 2,000–3,000+ (60% drownings)
- Pushbacks/Frontex Several hundred (2,000 deaths linked to Frontex actions)
- Land Borders/Camps Dozens to hundreds (Winter peaks, underreported)
There are by far too few NGOs or journalists looking into the despicable practices of the EU - but we Europeans definitely should not sit oh the high horse and preach about human rights to anyone.
It is a disgrace what we as a European people let our elected officials get away with.
Australia hat a similar situation. They cut that number down to basically zero when they publicly announced that no one entering Australia that way would ever be able to settle in Australia in any way.
No doubt we'll keep on giving lessons about these to non-EU countries anyway.