Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The Commission is what it is... the fact that the president is chosen by the Council, rather than elected by Parliament, is its original sin.

But given this, the rest of its functioning is largely modeled on governmental norms in constituent nations. A  Prime Minister is responsible, at least in theory, before Parliament, but is free to choose her own Ministers; the Commission's executive president, in the current confederal model, must work with the pool of talent made available by governments.

However, in at least one respect, the Commission model is more democratic than that of any member nation (that I know of), in that Parliament gets to audition and confirm -- or reject -- each nominee. And increasingly uses this right to chuck out those national nominees that appear too extremist, incompetent or corrupt.

But parliamentary sanctions for sitting Commissioners ? How could that possibly work?

I'm not seeing any power grab here : Hogan resigned, inconveniently but rightly; the President solicits nominees, but has a lot of coercitive power over who is an acceptable nominee, and what job they get. And that's as it should be. Obviously the nominated person should be subject to a Parliamentary hearing, and approval or rejection.

As for the gender balance thing, I think van der Leyden has a pretty clear mandate for that, both from Council and Parliament, but must be free to implement it as best she can within the Framework. I think it's a good call on her part to insist on a woman.  

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Sep 9th, 2020 at 05:22:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows: