> The last European elections also saw the rise of the 'Spitzenkadidat' system, meaning voters had a very direct idea of who they're supporting as President of the Commission.

Yeah, they had an idea, but there wasn't anything mandatory about that meaning that there's no binding law that makes sure that the vote is relevant for who is appointed to this position.

I doubt that a controversial politician like Trump would be appointed voluntarily to this position if his party would have won. (they would have said something along the lines of he's a Nazi or he's like Hitler. End of discussion) In the end Junker was appointed because Merkel and Hollande said so, they usually get their way.

> So – examples?

1) Commission members are not appointed but instead nominated in consultation with the Commission President. If the President doesn't like the candidate he is free to give him a weak portfolio. Aside from that this process has too many layers that obfuscate who and how ends up in a certain position. For me this isn't democratic.

2) Recently the Eurogroup simply excluded the Greek finance minister in a meeting to prevent him from voting against their decision during the ongoing Greek financial crisis. Very democratic and accountable. If they don't like how some countries representative might vote they just exclude him.

3) Or how about the Treaty of Lisbon which was rejected by both the French and the Dutch. These governments decided to reinstate the treaty without letting their population vote on it again after some minor changes. Then 2008 the Irish voted against it and the EU simply decided to let them vote again until they had the result they wanted.

Edit: As I can't reply in a comment I'll do it here, sorry (apparently Hacker News admins limit my ability to post because they don't like my opinion):

> Neither the Dutch nor the French electorate ever voted on the Treaty of Lisbon.

This constitution that was voted down by the French and the Dutch was the precursor to the Treaty of Lisbon. They simply renamed the thing and placed most of the provisions from the original constitution into the Treaty. Yes, there was no vote on it for the French/Dutch after the whole renaming.

That's why I criticise all these layers of obfuscation that they have created. Simply saying that the French/Dutch should do something about it if they don't like what was shoved down their throats isn't productive. In the end it creates resentment towards the EU as many people understand that the EU institutions will just do whatever they like.

> Nor is there for the head of state and head of government position in most European countries. To the other points:

Well then don't explain to us how we can democratically elect the President of the Commission as we simply can't. It's only by the good will of some very powerful politicians that Juncker was appointed. This might change the next time if they don't like the result.

> As far as I know no official vote was conducted during the meeting in which Varoufakis was excluded nor was this an official meeting as described in the treaties.

They excluded him from all future meetings. When asked about the basis of this decision he got this official statement:

"The Eurogroup is an informal group. Thus it is not bound by Treaties or written regulations. While unanimity is conventionally adhered to, the Eurogroup President is not bound to explicit rules."

http://www.businessinsider.com/yanis-varoufakis-eurogroup-st...

Do you understand what this means? There's an informal group that decides on important matters which isn't bound by any treaties or written regulations. So when unanimity is "conventionally adhered to" (lawyer speak for: just if we like to), they can just as well exclude someone that has a different opinion for no reason whatsoever. This is completely ridiculous.

> The commission's president needs to agree to each and every filled position. That's how it works in basically every government, by the way. The whole commission needs to be voted in by the European parliament. The MEPs have refused to approve commissions with undesirable members in the past. On the other hand, as a German I have no direct say in my own country's ministers. They can be appointed without asking the parliament at all.

Well, to solve this issue the EU could introduce 3 new layers of obfuscation to make sure that definitely no one understands anymore how someone is appointed into a position. Let's also make it informal so no one is bound by any treaties or written law, but the best thing would be that they don't tell anyone.