Absent from the presentation to the press of the priorities of the MEPs for the next five years,  (CSV/EPP) was at the centre of the discussions, with the central question being the relevance of his nomination by Luxembourg as European Commissioner to the detriment of  (LSAP/S&D), the outgoing commissioner and the Socialists’ lead candidate. Should Schmit have been nominated by Luxembourg? The four MEPs present--Christophe Hansen and  (CSV/EPP) were excused--all had strong opinions on the form of the nomination. But they refuse to censure the Luxembourg candidate.

Considering the future commissioner as the sixteenth or seventeenth member of the government is not the best way to act.

Charles Goerens, member of the European Parliament, DP/Renew

For (DP/Renew), it was a political mistake for prime minister  (CSV) to endorse the choice of Hansen before the results of the European elections were known. In his view, “we should have waited for the results of the European elections. It was only after these two elections that it was necessary to designate from among the potential candidates someone who would be able to meet the requirements of competence--and from this point of view there are no problems for either Nicolas Schmit or Christophe Hansen--parity and political representativeness. It is in the dialogue between Luxembourg’s political leaders and the president of the European Commission that this matter should have been settled. I believe that the dialogue should have started with the president of the commission before anyone was appointed. A dialogue that could have remained confidential until the appointment was made. I can well imagine that people outside the political arena are capable of doing this job. Considering the future commissioner as the sixteenth or seventeenth member of the government is not the best way to act.”

That said, Goerens will not stand in the way of Hansen’s appointment during the hearings before the MEPs and the final vote by the European Parliament in plenary session.

This isn’t a blank cheque we’ve written [Ursula von der Leyen].

Marc Angel, member of the European Parliament, LSAP/S&D

(LSAP/S&D) will not be obstructing Hansen’s appointment either. For him, the important thing will be the proposed portfolio and the conduct of the hearing before the relevant committee. “I have a great deal of respect for Mr Hansen and I’m sure he will have a good hearing. It’s not a question of voting against Mr Hansen. That’s not the issue. I’m fighting for Nicolas Schmidt because I defend the principle of the spitzenkandidat and I defend the principle of a certain political balance. With five Socialist heads of government, you can’t have four commissioners. We are by far the second European party, with 20% of the vote behind the EPP’s 25%. The gap is enormous and we need to redress the balance. It’s not about one person, it’s about the credibility of the Party of European Socialists and the respect that Ms von der Leyen gives us.”

For him, the Thierry Breton episode and the requests made to the Romanian and Slovenian authorities to nominate a new candidate leaves hope for Schmit or, at the very least, for an additional Socialist commissioner. “It is up to Ursula [von der Leyen] to go and see the prime ministers of her political family to convince them to change their choices.”

While he has no intention of withdrawing his support for von der Leyen, Angel is disappointed. “Her good result in July has given her wings and she thinks she can get away with anything. But this isn’t a blank cheque we’ve written her. She has to realise that,” he insists, referring to the executive vice-presidency promised to Raffaele Fitto of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, a member of Giorgia Meloni’s Fratelli d’Italia party.

For me, parity was a given.

Tilly Metz, member of the European Parliament, déi Gréng/Greens/European Free Alliance

A prospect that also displeases (déi Gréng/Greens/European Free Alliance), who says she is scandalised by the lack of parity and representativeness in the new commission. “For me, parity was a given. It’s all very well to make fine rules at European level, but if the European institutions don’t set themselves up as the model for the rest of the world, then we’ll have a problem. If the European institutions don’t set themselves up as role models, we’ll never make progress. The fact that we have ten women against sixteen men is problematic. Just as giving an executive vice-presidency to a member of Ms Meloni’s party is problematic. This is not what was agreed with Ursula von der Leyen. The fact that the Socialists only have four commissioners does not represent the wishes of the people.”

Despite all that, Metz has no intention of censuring the proposed college or opposing Hansen’s appointment. She is awaiting the hearings of all parties, and for Hansen, whom she anticipates as the agriculture commissioner, she expects strong words and deeds on the issue of one of her political priorities, animal welfare.

I’m sticking to the treaties.

Fernand Kartheiser, member of the European Parliament, ADR

For (ADR/ECR), there is no suspense: he will vote for the candidate proposed by Luxembourg. “I’m sticking to the treaties. They clearly state that it is the governments that appoint the commissioners, not the European Parliament, not the commission, not even the president of the Commission. The Luxembourg government has made its decision. I respect that. So as far as I’m concerned, Mr Hansen should be the Luxembourg commissioner. The arguments against him are false, since the treaties make no provision for gender parity within the commission. It is a purely political invention that is not based on an official text. Similarly, this system of spitzenkandidaten at European level does not exist in the treaties. As long as the Luxembourg government maintains its candidacy, I will support it. Of course!”

This article was originally published in .