1. Each commissioner has their own dedicated area and portfolio, so if the problematic law is in some other commissioner's area then your vote is worth nothing.
2. Commissioners are appointed by governments only in theory. In practice the President reserves the right to veto any commissioner they don't like, and give or take their responsibilities them at will. This ability doesn't exist in the treaties but Juncker has admitted he did it all the time [1] and explicitly stated that it renders worthless "populism" and "insubordination" (what people like him call actual democracy).
3. Commissioners are required to take an oath of loyalty to the EU and explicitly promise to ignore any instructions from their governments of citizenship [2], so being able to appoint them - even if it actually worked - would grant national governments no real power.
4. Many of the key policies of the EU are decided by people who aren't appointed by countries anyway, e.g. the ECJ or ECB.
So in practice there are no examples of countries meaningfully impacting EU policy by changing their commissioner, and national parties do not campaign on this basis. Again and again this point must be repeated. The EU is not honest about how it actually works. It is not a democracy. It has never been and never will be. Any mechanism or system that looks superficially democratic will turn out to be subtly broken or unusable on close inspection.
[1] “Nobody knows this, but last time I rejected the candidacies of six of the Commissioners presented to me by national governments. Do remember that governments merely propose commissioners. It is the president of the Commission who accepts them and allocates their responsibilities. Whilst certain countries [sometimes]allow themselves a degree of insubordination, depending on who happens to be in power and the stage of the political cycle they are in”, he was “confident that in a few years’ time, these issues won’t be troubling us anymore” (Juncker)
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/eu-president-eurosceptics-blocked...
[2] "I do solemnly undertake: to be completely independent in the performance of my duties, in the general interest of the Communities; in the performance of these duties, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other body"
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_10_...
Of course your vote is worth something. It changes another commissioner with another portfolio. Just because every subset of the demos votes for a different official doesn't make it any less democratic.
Similarly, in the US, a senator can be on a committee with a dedicated area and portfolio and you might not be able to influence their election if you live in the wrong state.
> In practice the President reserves the right to veto any commissioner they don't like, and give or take their responsibilities them at will.
This is common in presidential systems. I know for a fact it works that way in the US, but I'm pretty certain it does so in other systems as well.
> This ability doesn't exist in the treaties.
That's not the scandal you make it out to be. Plenty of democratic systems function more by convention than by written down law. Prime example is the UK, where a lot of constitutional law is nothing more than unwritten convention. The very existence of the office of the UK Prime Minister itself is not written down in law anywhere! [0]
> 3. Commissioners are required to take an oath of loyalty to the EU and explicitly promise to ignore any instructions from their governments of citizenship [2]
Of course they are, they're EU commissioners after all. US government officials take an oath to the US, too, and not the state they're from.
> so being able to appoint them - even if it actually worked - would grant national governments no real power.
Who said anything about granting national governments any power? That's not a prerequisite for a democratic system at the level above.
> It is not a democracy. It has never been and never will be. Any mechanism or system that looks superficially democratic will turn out to be subtly broken or unusable on close inspection.
None of your points are indicative of a lack of democracy. It might not be your preferred mode of democracy, but none of your complaints are unique to the EU, they're all features of other democratic systems as well.
Reading between the lines, it seems like your main gripe is the weakening of the nation state in favor of a larger block. I understand that might make you unhappy, but it is not per se undemocratic as long as the larger block is democratic. I also happen to believe it's the right thing to do, Europe has been held back by petty national squabbles for way too long, it's time we finally unify to the superpower we're meant to be.
[0] https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-co...
> You literally cannot change EU law via elections in any way in Europe
Your claim: you can vote for someone who will vote for someone who will suggest someone who can be rejected and who will then swear to ignore the wishes of the original voters anyway, and this is fine.
No it isn't. The EU is a dictatorship that like all dictatorships plays pretend and has meaningless votes for people who don't matter. Your attempts to obfuscate this core truth are impressively high effort, but mixing and matching different aspects of different democracies from around the world whilst ignoring all the ways the EU is different doesn't actually yield a winning argument.
> it is not per se undemocratic as long as the larger block is democratic
In fact placing a same-sized parliament under the control of a much larger number of people would be less democratic, as each individual has less influence over the results. But the EU isn't democratic anyway, so this point is moot.
> it's time we finally unify to the superpower we're meant to be.
And there it is, revealed in the final sentence. We didn't have to scratch deep to find it this time: the power hungry authoritarianism that motivates EU ideology. And you're in Austria no less. Every other attempt to unify Europe under a single government has led to dystopian disaster, but this time it'll be totally different!
Note how you haven't addressed any of my arguments.
> And there it is, revealed in the final sentence. We didn't have to scratch deep to find it this time: the power hungry authoritarianism that motivates EU ideology. And you're in Austria no less. Every other attempt to unify Europe under a single government has led to dystopian disaster, but this time it'll be totally different!
What exactly is authoritarian? You can't just use bad words against arguments you don't like, you have to actually back up your points.
All you have done is make wild claims, which I've refuted, as a result of which you've then called me an authoritarian and the EU a dictatorship without any substance to back it up.
You can't vote for anyone who has actual power: not a problem, that's democracy. The people you try to indirectly appoint to the Commission are rejected on ideological grounds: not a problem, that's democracy. The people who end up with power literally take an oath to ignore your vote: not a problem, that's democracy.
As for what is authoritarian? This whole thread is literally about the EU establishing a China style censorship regime.
You aren't engaging with the substance of the objections, just playing silly word games in an attempt to deny what you're supporting. You want a unitary superpower because it makes you feel strong, you feel you're "meant" to have power and feel the EU is staffed by people just like yourself. You will continue to throw dust around to try and obscure what this system really is until the day it turns on you, by which time, my friend, it will be far too late.
I have shown that these so-called dictatorial aspects are also features of other democracies. Are the US and the UK dictatorships as well, then?
You can. EU law is written by commissioners, which are appointed by national governments. You can change the commissioners by changing the national governments, which happens through elections.