Introduction to the European Union - Week 4: The European Commission

Quick recap

• What the European Commission does:

  • Proposes and drafts EU laws and policies.

  • Ensures EU law is correctly implemented and enforced across member states.

  • Manages day-to-day EU affairs and represents the EU internationally.

• How Commissioners are appointed:

  • Commissioners are nominated by each member state.

  • The College of Commissioners is formed and requires approval from the European Parliament.

  • The President of the Commission is chosen by the European Council and then elected/approved by the European Parliament.

• What the commissions’ departments are called:

  • They are organised into Directorates‑General (DGs) which cover policy areas.

• Who chooses the President of the Commission:

  • The President is proposed by the European Council (heads of state/government) after consultation with the Parliament, and the Parliament must approve the College including the President.

Commissioner candidates rejected

• Clips referenced:

  • von der Leyen’s College might be delayed (clip link provided).

• In hearings of potential Commissioners, MEPs look for:

  • Competence and relevant expertise for the portfolio.

  • Integrity and ethics (conflicts of interest).

  • Independence and ability to act in the EU interest rather than national interests.

  • Consistency between past record and future commitments.

  • Willingness to cooperate with Parliament and other EU institutions.

• Triggers for rejection (as a thought exercise):

  • Evidence of conflicts of interest or corrupt practices.

  • Lack of credibility or capability to fulfill the role.

  • Clear misalignment with EU values or legal requirements.

  • Inability to commit to the responsibilities of the portfolio or to uphold EU law.

• Exercise prompt (from the transcript):

  • Imagine you are an MEP: what would you look at in hearings?

  • What would trigger a rejection?

Farage v von der Leyen

• Key arguments by Nigel Farage (as presented):

  • Emphasis on national sovereignty and democratic accountability to member states and national parliaments.

  • Critique of EU bureaucracy and perceived overreach of EU institutions.

  • Skepticism about the centralization of power at the EU level and the distance from citizens.

• Key arguments by Ursula von der Leyen (as presented):

  • Argument for EU-wide action and legitimacy of the Commission in driving common policies.

  • Focus on reform, unity, and pivotal policy areas (e.g., climate, the economy, social policy).

  • The speech raises questions about whether the Commission is becoming overtly political or remains a technocratic body.

• Question for reflection:

  • Do you think Ursula von der Leyen’s speech confirms the idea of the politicisation of the Commission?

The European Commission

• Current arrangement:

  • Every member state has a European Commissioner.

• Arguments for this arrangement:

  • Ensures equal representation of member states in EU executive work.

  • Maintains direct links between member states and EU decision-making.

  • Helps distribute geographic and national perspectives across policy areas.

• Arguments against this arrangement:

  • Can promote parochial interests over EU-wide priorities.

  • May lead to politicised appointments and reduced perceived independence.

  • Risk of inefficiency or duplication of effort across portfolios.

  • Could complicate coordination and timely decision-making due to diverse national interests.

• Discussion prompts (classroom context):

  • Are there reforms that could balance national representation with EU-wide coherence without sacrificing accountability?

  • Could portfolio design or appointment processes be adjusted to improve efficiency and expertise?

The European Commission: strengths and weaknesses

• Barroso clip (starting at 1:30) – what it conveys about the Commission President:

  • The President presents as a central, visible leader who shapes policy direction and represents the Commission.

  • The role combines strategic leadership with significant political responsibility and negotiation within and outside the EU.

• Impressions about the role of the Commission President:

  • The President chairs the College and sets the policy agenda.

  • The President must balance ambitions with the realities of inter-institutional politics (Council and Parliament).

  • The President’s leadership impacts how effectively the Commission can act and deliver outcomes.

• How powerful is the Commission (in light of Barroso’s statements)?

  • The Commission holds substantial agenda-setting and implementation power within the EU framework.

  • Its power is constrained by checks and balances: approval by the Parliament,必须 coordination with the Council, and dependence on member state cooperation.

  • The President’s leadership is critical to driving a coherent EU agenda, but success requires consensus and legitimacy across institutions.

• Ethical and practical implications:

  • Tension between technocratic decision-making and political accountability to elected representatives.

  • The balance between national interests and EU-wide goals; risk of perceived democratic deficit if the public does not feel connected to the Commission’s actions.

• Real-world relevance:

  • The Commission acts as the EU’s executive arm, but its effectiveness hinges on cooperation with the Council and Parliament and on public trust.

Connections to previous lectures and foundational principles

• Foundational governance principles:

  • Separation of powers within the EU: Commission (proposing/executing), Parliament (legislation and oversight), Council (member state representation and decision-making).

  • Democratic legitimacy: Parliament’s consent, elections, and the role of member states in appointing Commissioners.

  • Subsidiarity and proportionality: EU action at the appropriate level; the Commission’s initiative power vs national sovereignty.

• Real-world relevance:

  • How the Commission’s appointment, independence, and perceived politicisation affect EU policy outcomes and public trust.

  • The balance between national representation and EU-wide governance in ongoing reform debates.

• Key terms to remember:

  • Directorates-General (DGs) = departments of the Commission organized by policy area.

  • College of Commissioners = the group of Commissioners led by the President.

  • EU institutions involved in appointment and oversight: European Council, European Parliament, and the Commission.

Quick wrap-up and takeaways

• The Commission is central to initiating and enforcing EU policy, but it operates within a system of checks and balances that includes both inter-governmental and parliamentary oversight.

• Appointment processes and debates about politicisation reflect ongoing tensions between national sovereignty and EU-wide governance.

• Understanding the roles, appointment mechanisms, and potential strengths/weaknesses helps explain current EU policy dynamics and political discourse.

Numerical references and formulas

• No numerical data, statistics, or mathematical formulas were provided in the transcript.

• If needed for exams, you can cite typical facts from external sources (e.g., portfolio counts, voting procedures) with proper references, but they are not included in this transcript.