David Cameron's choice for Britain's European Commissioner could be voted down by MEPs because of his "radical anti-European views", the President of the European Parliament has said.
The Prime Minister is attempting to secure one of the Commission's key economic portfolios - such as trade, internal market or competition - for his nominee Lord Hill of Oaresford while meeting fellow EU leaders for dinner in Brussels.
New Cabinet minister Michael Fallon said it would "certainly help us" if the peer took one of these roles, and rejected claims Lord Hill lacked the profile needed to win respect in Europe, insisting he was "an effective political operator".
But German media reported the president of the European Parliament Martin Schulz had told German radio: "I can't imagine that Hill, with his radical anti-European views, which he is supposed to have, will get a majority in the European Parliament.
Mr Schulz said that a rejection of Lord Hill's nomination by MEPs, who vote on the new Commission headed by Jean Claude Juncker in September, could not be excluded.
"It remains to be seen whether Mr Hill is unprejudiced towards us, and on that will depend whether he gets a majority," he said.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman pointed out the European Parliament has the opportunity to approve or reject a new Commission "as a whole, as a slate, not as individuals".
The spokesman said: "The Prime Minister is very confident he will command wide respect in Brussels."
Asked whether Lord Hill had "radical anti-European views", the spokesman added: "It is no secret Lord Hill shares the Prime Minister's views in terms of the need for Europe to reform and changing Britain's relationship with the EU as part of that."
The spokesman said Mr Cameron "thinks the appointment of Lord Hill is the right one and he has the expertise that will make him an excellent UK Commissioner".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article