Pelle Christy Geertsen / Sep 2026
Photo: European Union, 2026
From going rogue on offers of a new and undefined “associate EU-membership” without seemingly consulting anyone, or even defining what it is; over trade negotiations without proper mandate to what seems like active attempts at avoiding scrutiny and Parliamentary control – we may need to have a serious conversation about the President of the European Commission, and the way she acts.
A President gone rogue?
When Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, during her 2026 State of the European Union speech decided to offer Canada, a country geographically definitely non-European, the first ever Associated Membership of the EU, it was certain to draw headlines.
It was a moment that was designed to be remembered, especially since it was made in front of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and a moment that had politicians and journalists alike sure to include it as one of their anchor points when analysing or commenting on the speech. In that sense it was clearly the most memorable, and probably also significant part, of a speech, for which many had set their level of expectation rather low.
It was all of that, but it was also something else: It was the moment were it seemed like the Commission President had gone rogue. Not only does no one, not even the Commission spokespeople later asked about it, days after the speech, still seem to have even a hazy concept of what such an “associate membership” might entail, or even if it would be offered to other countries as well, and, if so, based on which criteria.
The fact that no “associate membership” category officially exists, making the content of the offer rather unclear should already be a big red flag, even to her staunchest allies. Yet that is not even the most problematic part of the proposal. That role is taken up by one the following three, of which I will let the reader choose for themselves:
First, there is the fact that von der Leyen clearly made her grandiose offer to Canada without even the faintest hint of a mandate from the EU Member States.
Secondly, it seems she not only didn’t ensure she had a mandate for what she was about to do, she also avoided informing the EU countries about it in advance, as it quickly emerged in the press.
Thirdly, judging from Canadian reactions, it also seems she acted like she did without bothering to check if this was indeed of interest to Canada or not, or even giving them prior knowledge of her announcement. Considering Trump’s initial reaction of further threats, this is something we can probably safely assume was not to Ottawa’s liking.
Pressed on all of this by journalists and others, the Commission in the days following did their utmost not to provide any answers to the very relevant questions posed.
In fact, one Commission spokesperson almost sounded like something out of a current Washington DC press conference, when he refused to provide any further information about the proposal, but instead described it as a Big, Bold, Beautiful idea, rather than providing at least some of the sought after information.
No doubt, the answer to the parliamentary question already asked about the legal basis and implications of the proposal, will be equally vague and/or devoid of any useful information.
It is easy to laugh and joke at this, but the EU might want to start asking itself how to deal with a Commission President that not only decides to go rogue on an issue such as this, but clearly even feels entirely entitled to do so.
The Turnberry-precedent
As EU policy wonks will know, the rogue comments about Canada are not the only time von der Leyen seemingly acts without following the proper procedures, and without wanting to provide much-needed information even afterwards.
The by-now infamous Turnberry tariff deal that she made in 2025 with Donald Trump on one of his golf resorts, was a clear, although in much small scale, precedent. It was a deal she legally had no mandate to negotiate, and which the Commission had not, like they are normally required to do, informed the European Parliament about in advance. It was also a deal that invoked quite some anger, as it allowed the US to levy tariffs on European products, while the EU promised to not retaliate in any way. Hardly a glorious moment of the EU standing up for itself, but rather a clear signal to Trump, that if you just bully us a bit, we’ll roll right over.
The political outfall of the deal was, in some circles at least, helping to undermine faith in her leadership and abilities to act under pressure. But the procedural shortfalls of the Turnberry tariff-surrender also go to show how the Commission President’s desire to act outside the normal procedures can have real consequences.
One such consequences was that the deal had to be deemed not to actually constitute a trade agreement, but instead be an agreement about tariffs, and thereby fall under the normal legislative procedure.
For the European Parliament this meant a hitherto unprecedented possibility to try to amend the agreement. Because where normal trade agreements only allow MEPs to say either yes or not, legislation means that Parliament can adopt amendments – and that is exactly what happened. Not least in the early phases after the Greenland invasion threat, amendments adding all kinds of safeguards, including proposals about automatic suspension if Trump engaged in further threats, were put forward. Some were even adopted, meaning that Member States and Parliament had to engage in actual negotiations about the content. What this meant was, in the end, that a deal that was branded as an attempt to show quick action from the EU side, ended up doing the exact opposite, since approval – predictably, some might add – dragged out.
The Turnberry deal should also carry another lesson, one that von der Leyen ought to have considered before going rogue on Canada: when no one is consulted in advance, no one feels obliged to back you up, or to help talk up your proposal.
Please, no in-depth questions!
Another sign of the Commission, or maybe rather its president’s almost obsessive-like relationship with (attempted) message control, are the so-called “Scrutiny Debates”, which are held during the Parliaments plenary-sessions in Strasbourg.
It is here where MEPs get their first chance to “scrutinise” the Commission’s proposals, when they come out with major packages. The September-session for instance saw MEPs quiz the responsible commissioner on the new Fair Labour Mobility package. Previous such sessions include the Action Plan on Cyber Security and AI, and the Fertiliser Action Plan. All topics that are current, relevant and definitely worth scrutiny.
So, on paper, it looks like a sound concept. That is, until one looks at the details. Because the Tuesday afternoon scrutiny sessions have a tendency to begin at 15.00 – the exact same time that the Commission officially releases the proposals that are to be scrutinised. This, of course, means that Members of the European Parliament have to debate a proposal, maybe even, as in September, an entire package, based only upon what the Commission decides to tell them during the debate. Alternatively, if they come further down the speakers list, they can choose to instead tune out the self-aggrandising words of praise bound to make up part of the responsible Commissioners speech, and speed-read through at least part of the proposal, and try to string together a minute or two of speaking time on the topic while in the plenary.
Neither of those two options are, I think we can all agree on, what would be considered optimal for any real kind of scrutiny.
Instead, it reeks of an administration that likes the idea of being able to control the initial reactions; by ensuring they are the only ones to know what it is actually about. That might indeed be great for message control, but it is hardly conducive of either genuine debate or scrutiny.
Considering that the situation could easily be remedied by either having scrutiny debates at a different time than the exact moment of publication (something I am told Parliament has suggested in vain to the Commission), or, alternatively, by releasing an advance copy to those registered for the debate.
One is tempted to remark that not daring to have the politicians know the text they are debating about is a great trick, if you yourself harbour doubts about the content you are presenting. Or, alternatively, if all your boss is really interested in, are uncritical words of praise and absolutely no difficult questions.
Parliamentary replies not worth the paper they are printed on?
A somewhat similar pattern emerges if you, like me, are geeky enough to look at how the European Commission under von der Leyen handles the written questions from Members of the European Parliament, questions they are legally bound to provide answers to. With answers increasingly seeming to come in bundles, often during or right up to parliamentary breaks, if one is of a suspicious mind, you could think that this was by design, to minimise the news value and to try to ensure MEP offices are less likely to act on the replies the get.
Much worse, however, is the content of the answers. More and more often I see replies from the Commission that in no way comes close to answer what was asked, yet just goes off on a standard rant, not even providing any marginally relevant information to what was clearly asked. Add to this how they often get replied to late, and it is hard not to have the feeling that the von der Leyen Commission would prefer a European Parliament that asked no questions of them at all.
And then we haven’t even talked about the rumours and increased perception that the Commission doesn’t even draft many of the questions anymore, but leaves it up to AI. While there is currently no proof of that, it certainly would explain the declining quality of the answers received.
All in all, the current President of the European Commission is certainly walking new roads and doing things differently – but one can wonder who, besides herself, this really benefits. Acting without prior consultation, or even notification; acting without mandate(s); and trying your best to dodge scrutiny – these are things that in the end look much more likely to help make the distance between the infamous “Brussels” and the European citizens seems much greater, something we are definitely not in need of.
