The backroom stitch-up of the EU commissioner hearings

This month's showcase hearings to approve the incoming European Commission were a spectacle — just not in the way they should have been.

What ought to have been a robust democratic exercise turned into political theatre with a predetermined script. The parliament’s mainstream groups — European People's Party (EPP), Socialists & Democrats (S&D), and Renew Europe — outdid themselves, reducing this process to a farce with backroom deals, feeble questions, and a historic compromise with the far right.

For a body tasked with holding the EU's executive to account, this was less a display of scrutiny and more an abdication of responsibility. The winners? The Ursula von der Leyen Commission and their new far-right pals. The losers? European citizens.

The first act of this tragicomedy took place in the JURI Committee, where nominees’ financial conflicts of interest were supposedly scrutinised. And by "scrutinised," we mean "glanced at, shrugged off, and rubber-stamped."

The session, which should have been a meticulous grilling, lasted less than an hour.

Why? The mainstream groups had already struck a deal to protect nominees, no matter their baggage.

Real questions? Forget it. Real accountability? Not a chance. Even a mild proposal for nominees to recuse themselves from decisions involving former connections was flatly rejected. The message was clear: ethics are optional when there’s political power to divvy up.

If the conflict-of-interest review was a sham, the public hearings were an outright joke.

These hearings are meant to assess the policy priorities and suitability of each nominee. But why bother when decisions were made in backrooms?

The content might as well have been replaced with elevator music. Public hearings should be about debating the EU's direction. Instead, we got theatre without substance. Mainstream groups rubber-stamped the nominees en bloc, reducing this democratic process to a hollow ritual. Citizens deserve better than a pantomime where the actors pretend to listen while the outcome is already typed, printed, and signed.

 Even a mild proposal for nominees to recuse themselves from decisions involving former connections was flatly rejected

The cherry on top of this debacle? The inclusion of two far-right nominees in the new commission, one potentially becoming a vice-president — the first far-right VP in EU history.

This wasn’t an accident; it was deliberate horse-trading by mainstream groups.

Let that sink in: the so-called 'moderates', rushing to approve their nominees, legitimized far-right politics at the heart of EU governance. For an institution that prides itself on democracy and human rights, this is a betrayal of staggering proportions.

But hey, as long as everyone gets their slice of the pie, who cares if far-right ideology starts creeping into EU policy?

By signing off on these deals, the European Parliament hasn’t just undermined the hearings process — it has undermined itself. It has stripped away its own powers of scrutiny, leaving the von der Leyen commission with nothing to fear. Why worry about tough questions when approval is secured behind closed doors?

'This is a political crisis'

This isn’t just embarrassing; it’s dangerous.

The parliament has handed its credibility to the executive branch on a silver platter. Worse, it’s shown that values can be compromised for expediency. By legitimising the far-right and ignoring ethics, the parliament has told citizens democracy is negotiable if the price is right.

While mainstream groups made deals, others demanded transparency, rigorous scrutiny, and ethical governance. Proposals to empower an independent ethics body to evaluate conflicts of interest and depoliticize decisions were dismissed. Calls to ensure public hearings focused on real content, not empty pleasantries, went unheeded. Worst of all, the far right was legitimized as acceptable partners.

These aren’t radical demands — they’re the basics of democracy. That they’re too much to ask speaks volumes about the state of the Parliament.

The 2024 hearings weren’t just a procedural failure — they were a political crisis. By undermining scrutiny and legitimising the far-right, mainstream groups embarrassed the parliament and endangered EU principles. Hearings should have demonstrated accountability and integrity. Instead, they showcased a parliament in self-destruct mode, prioritizing power plays over the public good.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Reforming the process — empowering independent oversight, depoliticizing decisions, and refusing to compromise with far-right extremists — isn’t just desirable; it’s necessary. Without these changes, the parliament risks irrelevance, becoming little more than a rubber-stamping body for an unaccountable executive.

The stakes are high, and time is short. We must fight for a parliament that puts people over politics, ethics over expediency, and democracy over deals. The alternative — a Europe run by far-right ideologues and unaccountable elites — is too grim to accept.