Brussels ViewPoint – European Commissioners: is it time for a system overhaul? – Denise Grech
6752 Mins Read
The Brussels ViewPoint is written by Corporate Dispatch correspondent in Brussels, Denise Grech and was first published on The CorporateDispatch Week.
There have been some who questioned whether the European Parliament’s committees are qualified enough to question the Commissioners. Every time the grillings to pick the next batch of 28 Commissioners, which hold a specific portfolio, critics question whether the system is only created to be a show for those in the Brussels bubble.
Politicians cannot be the ones to lead the highly-anticipated hearings since they risk not being seen as impartial, critics say. They obviously have their own agendas, especially those that represent the same country as the Commissioner being questioned. Because people are aware that the politicians are pushing their own agenda, this means the Commission also risks not being seen by voters as legitimate.
Politicians from both right and centre-right parties across the European Union have insisted the hearings are nothing more than a sham because of the way internal politics work.
But, over the course of this month, we have seen that members of the European Parliament have managed to keep commissioner-designates to account. Romania’s Rovana Plumb and Hungary’s László Trócsányi did not manage to be approved for their worrying conflicts of interest. These decisions, made by a clear majority, were well justified and necessary if the next Commission is to be held to the highest standards of ethics and transparency.
Earlier this week, commissioner-designate Sylvie Goulard was rejected. Her hearing was strong on policy, but that didn’t count for much. Back in her country, she is being investigated into possible misuse of EU funds for payments to a parliamentary assistant, and about her highly paid side gig with a U.S think tank. “How many French people earn €13,000 for making phone calls?” Virginie Joron, from the French far-right National Rally, asked.
The rejections put a delay on approving Von der Leyen’s commission, but it shows EU institutions can be tough when they want to be.
And yet, as soon as these decisions were made, it was clear they would be interpreted another way. Sure enough, taking a tough stance opened the European Union up to claims of political bias.
Still, critics have made the valid point that those in Brussels do not have enough resources, let alone time, to check out crucial information. For instance, members of the Legal Affairs Committee are expected to look into candidates’ declarations of financial interest, but it hasn’t been equipped with the relevant tools to do so.
Crucially, MEPs have not yet been given the necessary investigative powers needed, meaning the necessary checks could be insignificant.
The overall system however, does show the European Parliament can hold power to account. To ensure that parliamentarians are able to do so more efficiently, however, they must be granted more oversight and investigative powers.
