COMMISSIONER-DESIGNATE HEARINGS AND POLITICAL GAMES

There is no doubt that the hearings have become embroiled in political games, mostly between the centre right EPP and centre left S&D. While political trade-offs and negotiations are part of the course, these should not spill over into the public hearings and hamper the assessment of the competence of Commissioners.

It is also obvious that there is no clear consensus on what basis to judge Commissioners. Some have been opposed on the basis of political allegiances, some on the basis of their nationality and some on their experience/knowledge (or a mix of the above). This picking and choosing of criteria once again undermines the process and makes it impossible for the Commissioners to know on what level they are being assessed. This has led to attempts to try to please everyone further worsening the scrutiny process.

The Commission has always been about a balance between political and technical expertise – it both proposes laws and is responsible for upholding them. There are legitimate questions that can be asked about potential conflicts of interest and a basic grasp of the policy issues at hand nut the EP has hugely overstepped the mark by seeking to pin down Commissioners to particular political agendas.

 The Commission – and now the nominees – are the piggy in the middle in the increasingly fraught power battle between national governments and the EP. Throw in a large dose of intra-EP politicking and individual egos, and it is a recipe for chaos and one that is likely to further distance the EU institutions from electorates across Europe.

Three outcomes are possible next week:

1. A political package deal under which all nominees go through;
2. An agreement to replace one or two who aroused particular concerns about their ethics or values;
3. A reshuffle of Juncker's team to switch problem nominees to lower-profile portfolios.

The worst case scenario  is that all the bad candidates are kept because they cut a deal.