The independence of members of the European Commission has been a keystone of successful European integration. It is the EU’s strength. We need a strong Europe now, more than at any time in history.

For Ireland to have undermined the independence of the Commission, and its own representation in Brussels, at the very time when a no-deal Brexit is looming, is hard to justify, or even to explain.

History will not be kind, But it will not be kind to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen either.

Commissioners are obliged by their oath of office to seek a European solution to problems, rather than just seek a balance between conflicting national interests. They are obliged not to take instructions from the government that nominated them.

This obligation has stood since 1958, and this is why European integration has succeeded, while efforts at integration on other continents have failed, under the weight of national egoism.

This is why I am so deeply troubled by the failure of President von der Leyen to demonstrate the independence of the Commission in the recent Phil Hogan controversy

If the “one commissioner per member state” rule is to be kept in place as the union enlarges, commissioners from all states, large and small, must demonstrate that they put the European interest first, and are not subject to the vagaries and passions of politics in their country of origin.

That was put in doubt two weeks ago.

This is why I am so deeply troubled by the failure of President von der Leyen to demonstrate the independence of the Commission in the recent Phil Hogan controversy.

On 22 August, the leaders of the Irish Government called on the European Commissioner for Trade Phil Hogan to “consider his position”. Those words mean resign. He did so on 26 August. A dangerous precedent was set.

President von der Leyen clearly withdrew any active support from Commissioner Hogan, and unquestioningly accepted the line of the Irish Government.

She faced a political difficulty, but the treaties were framed do deal with fraught political situations, while preserving independence and due process

She did so without reference to the EU treaties, and to the Commission’s own code of conduct and ethics committee, which could have assisted her in ensuring that due process was followed, and that the independence of the Commission was preserved. In this, she failed to fulfil her responsibilities under the treaties.

She faced a political difficulty, but the treaties were framed do deal with fraught political situations, while preserving independence and due process.

The Commission is guardian of the treaties, and its president should defend the rules laid down in the treaties in all circumstances, even when it is politically difficult.

Article 245 of the treaty requires member states to respect the independence of commissioners. Ireland is bound by that article having ratified it in a referendum.

Article 245 refers to respecting the independence of commissioners individually, not just to the Commission as a whole.

Publicly demanding a commissioner’s resignation, for an alleged breach of purely Irish rules, is hardly compatible with the Irish Government’s treaty obligation under Article 245 to respect his independence.

There were options available to the president which would have respected Article 245 and which, inexplicably, she failed even to consider

If the Commissioner breached the law, due process in the Irish courts ought to have been applied, as to any citizen, no more and no less.

There is no evidence that President von der Leyen reminded the Irish Government of its obligations under Article 245, or of the option it had of using the normal processes of law to deal with any concerns it had.

There were options available to the president which would have respected Article 245 and which, inexplicably, she failed even to consider.

Code of conduct

Commissioners are subject to a Code of Conduct, last updated in 2018.

Under that code, there is an ethics committee which can determine if the code has been breached. If the matter was urgent, there is provision for a time limit to be set for a report by the committee.

A reference to the ethics committee would have allowed for due process, and a calm and fair hearing. More importantly using this process would also have asserted the independence of the Commission as an institution.

President von der Leyen’s failure to use these mechanisms seems to be a serious failure to defend due process and proportionality

The code says that it is to be applied “in good faith and with due consideration of the proportionality principle” and it allows for a reprimand where the failing does not warrant asking the commissioner to resign.

President von der Leyen’s failure to use these mechanisms seems to be a serious failure to defend due process and proportionality, and to protect the independence of individual commissioners, as she was required to do by the treaty.

Was what Phil Hogan did a resigning matter anyway?

Again, the treaties provide guidance. Article 247 allows for only two grounds for asking a commissioner to resign.

They are that he or she is “no longer being able to fulfil the conditions for the performance of his duties” or “has been guilty of serious misconduct”.

I do not think either condition was met in this case.

Weakening

This weakening of the institutional independence of the Commission is very damaging to European integration, especially when European solidarity is so important in face of a no-deal Brexit.

Ireland’s main market for its agricultural produce, especially its beef, will, from next January, be a non-EU country, the UK, which may impose high tariffs on Irish produce and permit increased volumes of competing exports from places like Brazil that do not have to meet the same costly standards as Irish farmers must meet.

So it is a buyer’s market

Demand for beef can shift easily from one supplier to another, while farmers have to commit to production three years ahead. So it is a buyer’s market. Only a strong EU, willing to spend money to manage the market, can ensure that the Irish farmer gets a fair price, and is willing to stay in business.

As a child, I remember my father, Joe, who was a regular contributor to this paper, complain, at our dinner table almost every day, about the unfairness of the situation of Irish farmers on the UK market.

In their preoccupation with the optics of golfgate, the Irish public lost a lot

That was before Ireland and the UK joined the common market. Only when we joined was a level playing field introduced.

In their preoccupation with the optics of golfgate, the Irish public lost a lot. The Government then followed, rather than led, public opinion.

This may have incalculable consequences for the future of Irish farmers and rural life.