Thread by @simonjhix

A few thoughts about Ursula vdL, the crisis the EU Commission is facing, and the Spitzenkandidat process ... bear with me 1/n

When a chief executive messes up badly in a democratic system, there is usually a debate about whether/how to replace them (well, except in the UK these days!) 2/n

In a parliamentary system, either the party considers replacing them, or there is a push for a no-confidence vote in the parliament 3/n

In a presidential system, impeachment proceedings begin (as we know too well!) 4/n

What drives these processes is democratic competition within or between parties. In absence of democratic contestation in the election of a chief executive, there is no-one claiming “I would have done better” 5/n

That’s precisely why I like the Spitzenkandidat process: the “loser” of the last battle, or the potential next opposition candidate, has an incentive to articulate how they would have done things better/differently 6/n

UvdL was chosen by the EuCo against the Spitzenkandidat process, and backed by a huge majority in the EP. As a result of that, there isn’t an “opposition leader”, who people can look to to articulate an alternative policy 7/n

The Commission President can be removed by a censure vote in the EP, which requires an ‘absolute majority’ of MEPs (Santer resigned before he lost such a vote) 8/n

I doubt UvdL will face a censure vote, as too many governments and MEPs supported her, so there isn’t an “opposition”. Santer won election in the EP by a slim majority (262 to 244), which meant there was an opposition ready to pounce when he messed up 9/n

In short: I honestly think the EU would be in a better place now had the governments not rejected the SK process. Need to bring it back in 2024 and make sure top quality candidates are put forward. 10/10

I should have said that a censure motion in the EP (against the Commission as a whole), under Article 234 of the EU Treaty, requires a two-thirds majority of votes cast, that must constitute an absolute-majority of MEPs, see: