The official nomination of the Commissioners-designates by President Juncker last week soon revealed some controversial characters. The top discussion this week in the Brussel and its media landscape was who is going to be grilled during the European Parliament’s hearings of the Commissioners and speculations about the outcome. Whilst the Parliament Committees sent their written questions to the candidates already last week (they have to be answered in writing by today, 26 September), everyone is looking forward to the moment when the Commissioners-to-be each enters their three hour public hearing fielding questions on their views on the EU, their motivation and qualifications.
Certainly, the European Parliament will not make it easy for some Nominees, as not only the media, but also MEPs already announced their resentment with certain Candidates. Moreover, in the past the European Parliament already showed that it is entirely prepared to decline Presidents nomination and turn down nominees.
There is, for instance, a great consensus that the British low-key eurosceptic Lord Jonathan Hill, who should be responsible for financial services, will make an easy target for the MEPs during the hearings. As British former lobbyist for financial services, it is debatable whether MEPs entrust him with the European Banking Union as he might put forward British or industry interests. Additionally, being a member of the ECR group, which is only the third biggest group in the European Parliament, the support of the bigger groups is not ensured. Thus it can be assumed that Lord Hill will be given the third degree. According to some MEPs, however, rejecting a nominee from the United Kingdom seems unlikely. Moreover, it would be strategically unwise for the EPP to go against the ECR group, as they might need their consent in future political debates.
On 24 September, the Greens have raised their concerns in an open letter to Juncker about the Spanish Commissioner-designate Miguel Arias Cañete who is appointed EU Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy. As former president of an oil company and his connections to the private sector it is assumed that he will be a sitting duck for corporate lobbying. Despite this, the reality is that the Commissioner-designate is a member of the EPP, the largest political grouping in the European Parliament and as a result is likely to be approved by the EP.
One further controversial Nominee to mention is Tibor Navracsics, the Hungarian Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Citizenship. Navracsics has been up until now foreign affairs minister of Hungary and is member of Victor Orban’s Fidezs Party. In particular the infringements of the rule of law in Hungary and the disregard of fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and press of the Fidezs Partz strike the MEPs and make the citizenship part of Navracsics portfolio very vulnerable during the hearings. The question, conversely, is how effective a rejection would be, as Orban would most probably resend a candidate from the same party and in the end Navracsics remains a member of the EPP.
Thus, Brussels can expect an entertaining public hearing where MEPs will cross-examine the Commissioners-to-be. Having a closer look it seems that political affiliation and sentiment are dominating the debate and will make a rejection unlikely but there is a lot of speculations about the outcome of the debate and it remains to be seen how the Parliament decides.