How to watch the commissioner hearings like a pro

Grab your popcorn.
Ever since European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced her team of potential 26 commissioners (one from each European Union country, excluding the Commission chief herself) in September, the nominees have been preparing for their moment on stage. Together with their teams, they’ve been prepping to defend their credentials in front of members of the European Parliament.
(Here’s a refresher on what von der Leyen laid out a few weeks ago for her team.)
Now the moment has come. Over the next eight days, the 26 nominees will face lawmakers. Those marathon three-hour hearings won’t only be a chance for prospective commissioners to showcase their knowledge, it’s a rare moment when the Parliament has a clear say on the affairs of the ever-powerful Commission.
The lawmakers are unlikely to miss the opportunity to draw blood.
Here’s how it will go down.
Cancel your plans from Nov. 4 to Nov. 12. The first hearings begin Monday at 2:30 p.m. and the final ones will wrap up Tuesday, Nov. 12 by 9:30 p.m.
Parliamentary committees will quiz commissioners for three hours. Some have been designated as a “responsible committee,” with the power to approve or reject the candidate. Others are only an “invited committee,” issuing a nonbinding opinion.
The detailed scheduling and committee allocation per commissioner is here.
In the first week, the 20 commissioners will undergo scrutiny, followed by the six executive vice presidents on Tuesday, Nov. 12.
You can watch the official streaming here once they start.
If you have a badge to enter the Parliament, you can attempt to watch in person. If you are a journalist, run. We surely will, as only the last row and the back area will be reserved for media on a first-come, first-served basis. The hearings take place in 2Q2 and 4Q2 in the Antall building.
You don’t need to worry about snacks as the Parliament has ensured there will be plenty available.
“The cafeteria in the ANTALL building will be open from 8.00 until 22.30 for refreshments (from Monday 4 November to Wednesday 6 November and on Tuesday 12 November). On Thursday 7 November, the cafeteria will be open from 8.00 to 18.30. The Bar in the SPINELLI building will be open until 00.00 (from Monday 4 November to Wednesday 6 November and on Tuesday 12 November),” the press service emphasized.
The in-person hearings are the final step in the Parliament’s lengthy vetting process. It all started at the beginning of October with the legal affairs committee scrutinizing the candidates’ financial declarations in search of conflicts of interest.
As POLITICO reported, all 26 nominees were given the green light despite some concerns voiced by political groups that some had left their conflicts-of-interest forms mostly empty. Those declarations are available to peruse here. Some lawmakers have argued the scrutiny process should be reformed.
Commissioner wannabes’ responses to the legal affairs committee’s questions remain confidential, but POLITICO gives you a sneak peek of how tense the correspondence was here.
The candidates also sent in written responses to the Parliament’s preliminary questions, which lawmakers used to prepare for the in-person questioning.  
Check out the would-be commissioners’ answers here.
The Parliament has divided up the 180 available minutes for each nominee’s hearing among various political factions based on the size of the respective group.
In the first round, groups must distribute their allocated time in five-minute time slots among their own MEPs.
Each slot is then broken down into one minute for a question from an MEP, followed by a two-minute slot allocated for a response from the nominee, a one-minute follow-up question from the same MEP, and finally, a one-minute response slot.
In the second round, groups will allocate three-minute slots to their members, which must include one minute for the MEP’s question and two minutes for the nominee’s response.
A similar structure will be applied to the chairs of the committees invited to give an opinion. Their assessments will not be binding for the final evaluation.
Within one hour after a hearing ends, a confidential “evaluation meeting” among lawmakers will take place to decide whether to approve or reject a candidate. They will have 24 hours to decide.
The discussion will be among the whips from each political group from the responsible committees, plus the chairs of the invited committees. No parliamentary assistants (APAs) are allowed.
Following the discussion, coordinators will vote in favor or against the commissioner, with a decision requiring a two-thirds majority. Each whip’s vote is weighted differently according to their group’s size. 
Reaching a two-thirds majority could be complicated: In many committees, reaching two-thirds will require votes in favor from Greens, Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the liberals of Renew Europe, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR).
If the lawmakers cannot reach a two-thirds majority to approve or reject a candidate in the first round, they can send additional questions or summon the nominee. Political group leaders will need to green-light any extra sessions.
The process remains confidential until all 26 hearings are over, but rest assured, we will report on it all the way!
No candidate has divided the Parliament’s political families as much as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s pick for commissioner.
Raffaele Fitto, set be the executive vice president for cohesion and reforms, is facing fury from the S&D, Renew Europe, the Greens and The Left. They’re furious such a role will go to someone from the right-wing ECR group and they are demanding he be demoted to a “regular” commissioner. S&D went as far as to threaten to withdraw support from von der Leyen’s college. 
On the other side, the center-right EPP is protecting Fitto, treating him as one of their own.
It is certain Fitto’s hearing will be tense, as will the evaluation meeting. Will Fitto cause an all-out war in Parliament?
Austria’s Magnus Brunner will face a tough time with his portfolio. Migration is one of the most contentious debates in Brussels as some lawmakers push for stricter immigration rules amid a far-right populist wave.
In his answers to the Parliament’s preliminary written questions, Brunner doubled down on the right wing’s calls for a brand new law on deportations and avoided taking a stance on institutionalizing deportation centers in third countries. Rest assured MEPs will push him to give a straight answer.
Brunner also defended boosting the EU’s border agency staff up to 30,000 with “a more ambitious role of Frontex in third countries.” However, Frontex can only operate within the EU and some neighboring states.
Spain’s Teresa Ribera is expected to become von der Leyen’s top counterweight within the college. She could be charged with leading both the EU’s mighty competition policy shop and the epochal green economic transition. One question hangs over her tenure.
“I’m wondering when she’s supposed to sleep?” asked German Green MEP Jutta Paulus.
France’s Stéphane Séjourné, the country’s former foreign minister, was nominated as executive vice president for prosperity and industrial strategy.
To his supporters, he is a savvy backroom operator whose in-depth knowledge of the Brussels machinery will help him succeed.
To his detractors, he is a sheep heading into the wolf’s den.
Séjourné may have been able to skillfully navigate the European Parliament, but it remains to be seen whether he will be able to take on Thierry Breton’s gigantic task of leading the bloc’s internal market.
Read the full profile here.
Olivér Várhelyi, the pick for the health and animal welfare portfolio, is a loyal supporter of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, known to terrorize staff, according to one former Hungarian official. By the time Orbán nominated him as commissioner in 2019, Várhelyi was well known for his “abrasive leadership style.”
His proposal as health commissioner was a shock to many, not only due to his lack of professional experience in health but also because Hungary’s own health system is riddled with problems. 
Várhelyi will face questions about his independence, having gone rogue on several occasions in his first term.
Read the full profile here. 
Karl Mathiesen, Zia Weise, Hanne Cokelaere, Eddy Wax, Clea Caulcutt and Rory O’Neill contributed reporting.