Commenters focused on the political optics of the EU proposal and whether its leaders are democratically legitimate. Bawolff said the Canadian government appears to be denying the proposal. Cromka and others suggested coordinated language coming from figures like Mark Carney, and Cromka argued critics actually want a directly elected EU president and even a constitution. Gizajob accused Ursula von der Leyen of “doublethink and doublespeak,” saying her claim that “Europe and Canada believe in democracy” rings hollow because von der Leyen was not put in her role by a popular vote.
Others defended the EU appointment process and pushed back on the democracy critique. Phoronixrly pointed out the commission president is chosen by the European Council, whose members are elected national leaders, comparing that legitimacy to prime ministers in parliamentary systems and dismissing criticism as Brexit-era disinformation. Vrganj invoked the U.S. Electoral College as an analogous non-direct method of choosing a head of state, while DarkNova6 noted no single system is a perfect blueprint for democracy. The division is between those who see EU leadership as technocratic and insufficiently popular and those who view its selection mechanisms as democratically grounded or at least comparable to existing democracies.
Summary generated by AI from the linked article. hn.today is not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator.