Jean-Claude Juncker’s problem pupils

What happened to commissioners-designate who botched their hearing before the European Parliament?

Click Here: cheap south sydney rabbitohs jersey

The confirmation hearings of would-be European commissioners before the European Parliament every five years is the one opportunity that MEPs have to shape the emerging college of commissioners.

Politically, they have used that power to eliminate particularly controversial nominees. Ten years ago, they forced out Italy’s Rocco Buttiglione, whose socially conservative views were unacceptable to the mainstream, and Ingrida Udre, who was judged incompetent. Five years ago, they forced out Bulgaria’s Rumiana Jeleva, again because they judged her incompetent, and cloudy about her declaration of financial interests.

This time around, they have forced out Slovenia’s Alenka Bratušek, who made a hash of her hearing, not helped by her arrogant attitude and the strong suspicion that her nomination by the caretaker government that she headed had violated national rules.

These hearings are a rare moment where a bit of politics, even political drama, pushes its way into the stodgy world of European Union policy. Politics – always present, but usually lingering beneath the surface – comes to dominate, for a few weeks, the European Union’s business.

The hearings are no mere prelude to politics, not just a means to establish the factual basis on which MEPs can then form their decisions. They are in themselves political, with sometimes unfortunate implications. An undeniably able and proven commissioner such as Cecilia Malmström of Sweden is subjected to a three-hour grilling while an unknown quantity such as Romania’s Corina Cret¸u is allowed to get away with rehearsed replies written up by Commission officials, without so much as an attempt to examine her background, expertise, or fitness to be commissioner.

Personal qualities and qualifications are but a detail in the complex mix of elements that determine whether a nominee makes it through the hearings intact. Weak candidates are sometimes protected by their membership of a party from the grand coalition, as was the case with Malta’s Karmenu Vella. Otherwise well-qualified candidates get into trouble because of their government’s track record, as was the case with Pierre Moscovici of France.

The committees were asked to submit a letter to the political group leaders, within 24 hours of each hearing, answering two questions: is the nominee suitable to be in the Commission, and is the nominee suitable for his or her assigned portfolio? The answers could be decided either by the political group co-ordinators on each committee, or by a full committee vote, in the absence of general agreement.

Several committees chose to delay confirmation by asking for further clarification from the nominees. Jonathan Hill was subjected to a second hearing and more written questions. Moscovici, Vera Jourová and Tibor Navracsics received extra written questions. Miguel Arias Cañete had a last-minute change to his declaration of financial interests sent to the legal affairs committee for scrutiny.

The table below gives an overview of the problem pupils in Jean-Claude Juncker’s class of 2014, what remedial action was taken by the schoolmasters in the European Parliament, and what the ultimate outcome was (or will be) in each case.