Europe's Unelected 'President' and the Unraveling of Democracy
THE CLAIM: Nicolas Schmit, a former European Commissioner, asserts that Ursula von der Leyen's leadership of the European Commission is 'not good' for the EU, characterizing it as 'presidential' and undermining traditional collective decision-making. He highlights a lack of transparency and an opaque centralization of power within von der Leyen's inner circle, rather than through the College of
Commissioners as designed. THE EVIDENCE: Schmit's critique points to a fundamental deviation from the foundational principles outlined in the Treaties of the European Union, which stipulate the Commission operates as a collective body (Article 17, Treaty on European Union). The 'presidential' label implies a concentration of power akin to a head of state, an office that the President of the
European Commission is explicitly not. This is not the first time such concerns have surfaced; numerous MEPs and observers have commented on von der Leyen's top-down approach since her appointment in 2019, often bypasssing traditional collegiate processes, which are meant to ensure representation across member states. THE CONTRADICTIONS: The official narrative from Brussels often emphasizes
collegiality, transparency, and democratic accountability. Yet, Schmit's statements – from an insider – directly contradict this, suggesting a system where core decisions are made by a select few, then presented as fait accompli to the wider Commission. This creates a disconnect between the public image of a united, democratically robust institution and the operational reality described as an