[native_samples]

The problem with this argument is as follows:

1. National governments do not have control. That implies that for each government, they could ensure the outcome they wanted, which is impossible in a shared legal system. In the era of the veto, you could argue that they had at least the very minimal level of control over change (by stopping it), but the EU has been systematically removing national vetos.

2. Even when vetos did exist, they were hardly 'control' as a regular person would understand it. That would be akin to arguing that as long as a car has a working brake you're in control even if you can't move the steering wheel or stop the engine.

3. We don't actually know the national governments control who becomes EU Commission President. We believe this to be the case because in theory the treaties say that's how it works, but the EU routinely violates its own treaties. For example the treaties say that the Commission gets Commissioners allocated and the national governments control those assignments. In practice the former president (Juncker) boasted in public that he vetoed any commissioner he didn't like. This is not allowed under the treaties but, happens anyway.

4. The actual process by which vDL became President is entirely and completely opaque. The national leaders walked into a locked room and ... something happened. Then vDL was announced as leader. How was that decision arrived at? Which countries voted for her or against her, and why? Was there even a vote at all? Are leaders being threatened or bought? The question may sound absurd but actually the EU has quite bad problems with corruption, and effectively buying support via massive subsidies to poorer countries is a core tactic.

The point is, nobody can answer these questions because the EU is completely opaque. vDL refusing to release critical negotiations in direct violation of EU law is entirely expected from this system; the EU has lots of laws and regulations but they are always ignored the moment they become inconvenient. No system that claims to be democratic can tolerate such levels of opacity.

One last point. The assumption in your argument above is that if voters elect a politician they will actually represent the people who elected them. At the individual / leadership level it is fairly well known that the EU routinely corrupts politicians into going against voter's wishes by offering to hire them into the Commission temporarily after they lose elections. These jobs come with absolutely massive "pensions" that are well out of line with any normal pension, which require virtually no work to obtain, which can be claimed before reaching retirement age and which can be rescinded if the recipient is disloyal! In effect these so-called "pensions" are legal bribes.

The extent of the pension bribes problem can be seen in the scale of EU payments to UK politicians (who of course all became strong remain supporters):

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/europe...

[tankenmate]

You could also say that directly elected members go against the electorate due to party influence like the party whip system in the UK. Look at Brexit, it has caused economic harm to the UK, and this has caused support for it to drop; but MPs are not looking to change tack and "make the best of Brexit" (as polls suggest the populace wants), they're doubling down to make it worse.

"Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others that have been tried". I would suggest the same holds for most of the variations, no system will keep all the people happy (or be perfect).

Personally I am prefer the grander bargains of democracy; transparency (vs back room deals), rule of law (vs corruption), and accountability (vs protection by / for the party). I also would prefer rationality over tribalism, but I suspect that might be too much to ask of humanity.

[native_samples]

In the UK people vote for parties and not individuals almost all of the time, so the whip system is there to ensure people get what they actually voted for. A good example of where this disastrously failed is just after Brexit where a lot of MPs campaigned on a platform of respecting the vote, then did a 180 degree turn and refused to do so once in power. They all lost the whip and were kicked out of the party but then refused to call by-elections to let the voters re-decide. Eventually, Boris was able to call an election and every single one of those MPs lost their seats.

"Look at Brexit, it has caused economic harm to the UK, and this has caused support for it to drop"

Economic harm?! The impact of Brexit, if any exists at all, is unmeasurable because it's lost in the noise compared to lockdowns and trying to fight COVID.

What we can say for sure is that the people who claimed voting to leave would trigger an immediate recession were wrong. The economy grew in the years after the vote. Actual implementation was largely put on hold just months after leaving due to COVID and little has changed since.