Phil Hogan resigns because of the golf-gate scandal.
Unprofessional PR management of Ursula von der Leyen imo to let it take that long... let it capturing the newsmedia headlines that long.
https://www.politico.eu/article/phil-hogan-resigns-as-eu-trade-boss-over-golfgate-scandal/
Could she have fired him? Calling for his resignation and then Ireland's Government continuing to back him would have looked worse for her I think. The Commission is not a government after all, it functions by different rules. Public Opinion isn't the most important thing for von der Leyen, there could have been any other "Brussels-interior" reasons for her lateness - not wanting to having to reshuffle her commission posts for example.
By the EU rules the country that delivers a Commissioner is forbidden to take formal influence. Formally only Ursula von der Leyen is entitled.
Think back for example on Tusk. The Polish government wanted him fired, but Juncker could fully ignore that.
The informal role of Ireland in this affair is unclear to me:
On the one hand a lot of noise was made by the PM and the former PM. But on the other hand that could have been for domestic purposes only, because Ireland was quite happy with an Irish guy on that EU trade position.
Brexit was ofc mentioned, but that is handled by Barnier.
If this dual position would be the case Ireland behaved badly imo. But very perhaps negotiations took place in the background to increase the likelyhood that Ireland would get back that trade position.
It can ofc also be that another country, or a group of countries saw this affair as an opportunity to change the balance. Getting a consensus on that taking some time.
So yes... a lot is possible we do not know... do not know yet (to some or more degree).
I do BTW think that public opinion is important for Ursula von der Leyen. Not in a formal way with public election as accountability, but in terms of credibility of the brand EU.
I am not sure that I agree that the EU Commission is not government, but the meaning of words such as government can become
ambiguous with translation between languages and in the interpreting context of differing constitutions, and this is not my main point.
I think that the forced resignation occurred due to a combination of reasons:
A): EU Commission won't want to fire a commissioner at the request of a member state government
because that concedes power back to the nominating member state.
B): EU Commission doesn't want to fire a functionally incompetent commissioner
because that admits it is not always competent.
C): EU Commission doesn't want to fire a commissioner because he/she has broken
the rules on Coronavirus/Expense claims whatever because they know full well that he/she
is unlikely to be the only one, and there is a very nasty risk of precedent, slippery slope.
D): EU Commission does not want to have to precisely formalise its internal working and
potentially have them exposed to the ECJ and public opnion if the commissioner disputes it
It might be able to duck that risk by indefinitely suspending his credentials without formally
firing him, but that is messy and may have its own complications in terms of ongoing working.
But in this instance reasons A and C have stuck, and by letting them stick,
Phil Hogan has provided reason B.
And with all three reasons applying, the Commission sees no reason
to retain Phil Hogan who'd merely be a discredited lame duck.
And by resigning the difficulties of Reason D disappear.
By the way, I think that it was correct for Ursula von der Leyen not to
rush into immediate action; and instead ask him to give his own account
That enables an accused to:
(a) repudiate allegations (if false)
(b) admit allegations
(c) perjure themselves.