That is unrelated, the things contested to Luxemburg is that there was a special agreement in place for Amazon, which is forbidden by EU regulations.
The thing contested from the Italian tax office is actual tax evasion.
Edit: to clarify, I mean that Luxemburg can have had illicit behaviour independently from Amazon acting legally in Italy (which in theory they did since 2015).
Definitely awful. The discovery led to a huge scandal, but of course it was discovered after Juncker became president of the EC. He shouldn't have the position he has, but I'm not sure what could be done about it at that point.
They could, if they cared. I don't think they do. EP election participation is very low, and I don't think it's widely publicized which parties back which candidates. De jure, it's the national governments that elect the commissioner. I doubt the commissioner plays much of a role in national elections. Finally, I don't think people know or care much who is the commissioner. I mean, this is HN, so probably a subset of top 5% intellectually curious people and people here still know nothing about how this stuff works.
The people care infinitely more about "informational" memes about curvy bananas and conspiracy theories about Muslims and cultural marxism than about who picks who in some EU structure.
At the same time even the slightest EU regulations are like communism and even the tiniest enforcement of EU law or solidarity is comparable to an armed invasion on the country's sovereignty.
Cases in point are how before downing of MH17 in Ukraine Western European attitudes about sanctioning Russia were "not our problem" and "we would lose money" and how Eastern Europe fought tooth and nail against refugees because "Merkel invited them" and "all Muslims are rapists and terrorists".
And to add insult to injury every time European Council or European Parliament does something dumb the EU is being called undemocratic.
The democratic care deficit in people is not even EU specific. Turnaround is low all around in various elections and some people don't even know the name of the ruling party, prime minister, president, etc. in their own country.
Maybe the EU should actually disband and let Germany steamroll us all yet again. Maybe then people would get it.
While I agree, we would all be better off if the populace was more intelligent, I can't deny that this is a very narcissistic attitude.
National elections carry vastly more importance for the people than EP elections, just look at the voter turnout statistics.
And rightfully so. Just look at the daily news of Denmark, Netherlands or Germany. Countries that are compared to other sets of nations remarkably similar. Yet, languages aside, have vastly different daily concerns and thus vastly different needs. A parliament where your nations needs are watered down is guaranteed to offend your nations voters over each iteration where such offending decision takes place.
The bigger the electorate, the lesser a vote counts, thus less participation and ultimately less democratic legitimacy.
Voting doesn't require extraordinary feats of intelligence or lots of time. Probably up to 99% of people in Europe are literate and not declared insane and thus able to vote. All it requires is an ounce of care and taking a slightly longer walk once every 5 years. Even if the chance of making a change is miniscule it should be a forgone conclusion.
Almost every major party that starts in national elections also starts in European ones so the lowest effort vote is to just vote along your party line for whoever (which many/most people do for all elections already anyway). I will not ever buy the excuse that 60% of Europeans have not enough time to vote or took the high road and decided to not vote to not skew the results by their uninformed choice.
It's a question of attitude towards EU and democracy itself more than it is a question of how much it truly matters.
Poland is a unitary republic with directly elected president with strong veto power (which means that mismatch between president and parliament in political direction causes parliament to be more tame in bills it drafts). There was no two consecutive presidents from same political affiliation so far and only once there were two consecutive parliaments under the same party's government (PO-PSL coalition). This means that there is high chance to affect the outcome and that this outcome determines both the direction the country goes in and how strongly it goes in it. Despite that the turnout for both presidential and parliamentary elections was only around 50% (55% for second round in presidential elections). Due to few quirks of the rules and how close it was even half a million extra voters in right places could have affected the outcome significantly.
Meanwhile in the federal German elections there was over 75% turnout this year despite the fact that German federal government is quite stable for the last 17 years (Merkel as chancellor) and being a federation every German has his Land government (that is infinitely more powerful and autonomous than a Województwo in Poland is) closer to him and his "daily concerns and needs".
It's also not a question of only the how much effect the vote has because Poland's turnout in European elections is worse than it is for many smaller (dare I say - more pro-EU..) countries like Belgium, Luxembourg, etc. despite that fact that we get more MEPs than they do. Even more ironically, each Polish vote was stronger in its effect on EP composition than theirs due to that higher MEP number we get and low turnout we provide, i.e. 7.5 million Poles elected 51 MEPs at 24% turnout while 4 million Belgians elected 21 at 90% turnout.
EU and its predecessors were also supposed to prevent wars (one of actually stated ECSC goals was to make a war between France and Germany literally impossible) and set long term strategic goals, not manage day-to-day lives of Europeans, that's what their municipalities should do for them.
You're wrong on many points, but let me just pick one random section:
"Poland's turnout in European elections is worse than it is for many smaller (dare I say - more pro-EU..) countries like Belgium, Luxembourg, etc. despite that fact that [Poland] get more MEPs than they do."
First of all: Bigger countries, like Poland, get more nominal MEPs but MEP per voter is just what it is: Larger countries get less MEP per vote.
Second of all: Voter turnout for EP is low in all of Eastern Europe. It's not a Polish thing.
Third: It is lower than it was decades ago in all of Europe.
Fourth: You're examples of Belgium and Luxemburg aren't exactly the best suited for your argument. Those countries have made EP election participation mandatory by law - thus higher turnout.
1. The fact Poland got more MEPs as a bigger country and that bigger countries get less MEPs per eligible voter to protect the smaller ones are absolutely obvious. I'm not sure what you are even "picking" here, the point is that with low Polish turnout and high number of MEPs Poland puts in a Pole makes more of a change towards the EP composition that a Belgian does so he should be more likely to vote. MEP per vote (per vote, not per eligible voter) is actually higher for Poland than it is for Germany and Belgium because of this low Polish turnout. This should incentivize Poles to go to vote at least as much as Germans do but it doesn't.
2. Nowhere did I say it's a Poland exclusive thing and it's irrelevant to the argument. You are the one that made a sweeping generalization about why people happen to vote in general so all I need to provide is singular examples to disprove it (which I did).
3. That's completely irrelevant to your claims about how people are more likely to vote when it matters to their daily life or makes a significant change about the end result.
4. That law is not enforced (according to Wikipedia), if it were there would be a 100% turnout, not "just" 90% and even then the laws are what the society wants (more or less) and the same society can get rid of such laws if it doesn't think them right or boycott the vote itself using invalid votes - the secret ballot protects them in that case. Instead they vote and invalid votes percentage is as low as it is in other countries and not extraordinarily high.
You are free to use Germany instead of Belgium if the dead law about mandatory voting is so important to you. Turnout for EP was 48% in Germany where there are no such laws and 30 million Germans picked 96 MEPs, giving 0.3 million of voters per MEP, while Poland had 0.14 per MEP with 7.5 millions of voters picking 51 MEPs. Germans who (individually) affect the outcome less and who are in a much stabler situation in general due to Germany's own strength and location went and voted more numerously than Poles.
You also absolutely ignored how Poles care less about out national "winner takes all" vote than Germans do about their (comparatively) less important Federal ones (that are also among a bigger group of eligible voters, thus making each single German vote count for less than a Polish vote does for how each country is ran, in addition to unitary vs. federal split and German stability and Polish volatility) or how Poles vote in their own important national elections only as often as Germans do in very much comparatively irrelevant to them EP ones (and they are twice remove from EU affecting them via their own Federal and Land governments while Poles are once remove via our parliament and much more vulnerable to any EU fluctuations because we are smaller and in worse location as a country on an EU border).
Poland and Poles are often at odds with EU, Poland in vulnerable EU border position, Polish national parliamentary and presidential elections always swing the result and the outcome is absolute because Poland is not a federation. Pole should vote like crazy in all these elections but they don't so clearly just the fact a vote affects the outcome stronger (which Polish vote does compared to a German one) and that the voted on topic affects the the potential voter more (which both EU and national elections do to a Pole more than they do to a German) are not as relevant as you made them out to be. There are clearly other factors at work here in more significant ways that cause these differences in participation between (i.e.) Germans and Poles (maybe attitudes from the communist past, short democratic history or being relatively fresh EU country, I don't know).
Your points about how people are more likely to vote if it affects their life or about how there is less participation when a vote counts less towards the result are still both completely invalid because there are clearly other factors (that happen to make Poles vote less than Germans do) and you are now nitpicking, arguing semantics, changing the topic and listing all of the irrelevant and wrong nitpicks you can find and saying it's "one random section" to make it seem like if my entire wall of text was all wrong, which it wasn't.
I am done wasting my time replying to someone who argues in a way as disingenuous and cherry picked as you and I will not read your next reply.
I think what these eastern European countries want is precisely for Germany to stay out of their business. Ex, on immigration policy is just one example.
What is the solution that has germany completely leaving these countries alone, whether it is directly, or indirectly via the EU?
To say it like that is absolutely disingenuous and misleading.
He was approved by the EPP, European Parliament (that is directly elected) and European Council (whose members are heads of states or government and they are directly or indirectly elected in their countries). If people wanted him out strongly enough he would be out. But most people don't care about elections to EP enough to even show up, turnaround in 2014 was 42%.
Ministers, heads of government, speakers of the house, military officers, police chiefs, other parts of the executive branch, presidents of national companies and the central bank, heads of intelligence agencies, military officers and other positions that are the actual decision makers are not directly elected but appointed by the winners of direct elections (often a single party that doesn't even hold the absolute majority of popular support, as is the case now in Poland, where PiS has 51.5% of MPs with 39% of votes due to few quirks of the rules) in many countries and that's apparently not an issue to anyone at all (i.e. not anyone attacks PiS on that fact, even though they deflect all criticism by saying they are "representing the will of Poles") but when the same process happens in the EU among a much larger group of country heads and MEPs and with an absolute majority in place then it's the end of the world and dictatorship.
He is elected by EP (which is directly elected) and the European Council (members of which are directly or indirectly elected in their countries) so he is only twice and thrice removed from the voters, which is the same or closer than most of the actual "bureaucracy" (and that's not a dirty word and voting process in itself is very bureaucratic too) that governs people lives in nations is (which is not a problem or sign of 'deficit of democracy' or whatever to anyone who uses these arguments against the EU).
Luxembourg also (article) continues/doubles down it's tax deal policy despite him not being their prime minister anymore so these deals are not bad enough to burn whoever defends them to the point of being unelectable, the commission is now on that case and he as the President of the Commissioner answers to EU structures so if he does prove inadequate in his role and other countries' representatives care enough then he is toast (and if they all don't then who/what is supposed to take care of him and on whose democratic mandate?) but if he doesn't then there is no reason for him to get removed even if Luxembourg hates him for it, support of home country is clearly not formally or practically required, i.e. Tusk stayed where he is (Council President) without Polish support because other country heads kept him there.
Guy Verhofstadt is an MEP so was directly elected by his home country. Mandelson and Junker were/are civil servants so wouldn't get elected directly, but appointed by elected politicians.
> nice place to retire
Or in Mandelson's case a nice place to negotiate a ground-breaking trade deal with India. I'm planning an easier retirement myself. Maybe the UK house of Lords. Unellected clapped out politicians...
Or they get sent there because they lost a fight in their party: "In Brussels, no one can hear you scream".
It's definitely a step down compared to national politics. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Of course, if the EU was more powerful this might attract more up-and-coming politicians, but I don't think that's what people who make this complaint wants.
Guy Verhofstadt is a MEP, they are elected directly by the people.
Peter Mandelson was a commissioner, they are nominated by member countries.
Jean-Claude Juncker was the President of European Council, to become one he needed approval of most of its members which are heads of government or state of member countries.
The fuck is EU supposed to do with them then? Tell voters a MEP they directly picked in an election is thrown out, tell UK their chosen commissioner is thrown out and tell over 20 country heads in European Council the President they chosen is thrown out?
He was the President of the European Commission which requires approval of European Parliament (elected directly) and European Council (the heads of countries).
What the fuck is EU supposed to do with him? Throw him out and tell leaders and directly elected MEPs from 20+ countries to shove it? And who exactly is the EU in that case? Who and how could challenge these decisions while the majority of actual people in Europe don't give enough of a shit about Barroso and elect (if they even go to the elections..) these governments, heads of state and MEPs that put him where he was?
... because before the EU (i.e. all the treaties and "communities" that were set up piecemeal and then eventually coalesced into EU institutions), what was the premier instrument of dispute resolution in the European region?
The thing contested from the Italian tax office is actual tax evasion.
Edit: to clarify, I mean that Luxemburg can have had illicit behaviour independently from Amazon acting legally in Italy (which in theory they did since 2015).