After the UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s disastrous tactics in choosing who would be the next President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker’s decision to give the UK what seems to be an influential portfolio is an extremely generous gesture. However, all is not what it seems, writes chief political correspondent Tim McNamara.

The nomination of Jonathan Hill as Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital markets Union has been welcomed by the UK Government and by the financial markets in the City of London. However, the post is not as powerful as the one the previous incumbent (Michel Barnier) enjoyed.

Not only has the portfolio been stripped of its influential internal market responsibility, which have been allocated to the Polish Commissioner-designate Elzbieta Bienkowska, but Hill will also have a Vice-President in an overseer role as regards matters that effect the Euro (Valdis Drombrovskis). As well as three other overseers for parts of his portfolio in the persons of Vice-President Andrus Amkis – Digital Economy and Society;  Jyrki Katainen – Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness; and Vice-president Kristalina Georgieva – Budget and Human Resources.

David Cameron’s lonely attempt to block Juncker at the Ypres summit in June was extraordinarily unsubtle and risked the UK being marginalised within the Commission. Cameron may believe he has obtained a plum portfolio for the UK but from looking at the new Commission’s organigram it is quite clear that Hill will have to serve several masters as well as Juncker himself.

Whilst the new European Parliament has been flexing its muscles with its new found powers under the Treaty of Lisbon, Hill would have had a much easier ride in his hearings with the MEPs if the UK Conservatives had been part of the mainstream centre-right group in the European Parliament, the European Peoples’s Party (EPP). Cameron’s decision to cause a schism in the centre-right across the EU has meant the current UK government has traded influence for antipathy, political intelligence for marginal roles and authority for bellicosity.

Hill’s nomination hearings and the subsequent difficulties Hill had with them, were an object lesson in where power lies in the European Parliament (EP). Although the Tories’ group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) is the third largest group in Parliament, its influence is relatively weak and it was unable to strike any deals with the two main groups (EPP and the centre-left Socialists and Democrats – S&D).

In many respects Hill was left to his own devices not only by his party but also, it seems, by the people advising him. What is clear is that the MEPs were more emboldened attacking Hill because he was not from the political mainstream in the EP. it is acknowledged that Muscovi (France – S&D) and Cañete (Spain -EPP) had rough rides also, but there respective blocs are big enough to ultimately protect the nominees from their own group in the long run.

In fact, what may have helped Hill enormously, and generated a great deal of schadenfreude in the UK’s Permanent Representation to the EU and amongst his advisors was the immense difficulties the Slovenian nominee for Vice-president was getting into in her hearing on Monday (6 October). Alenka Bratušek, Commissioner and Vice-President-designate for Energy Union, made a highly unconvincing appearance in front of two European Parliament committees. She was ponderous in her answers and was unable to advance compelling detail about her future responsibilities.

The Parliament looks like it may have got its ‘sacrificial lamb’ and Hill will now be able to quietly slip into the background, approved by the relevant committees in the EP. The only risk to the UK and Hill’s responsibilities is if Bratušek’s downgrading from vice-President or being rejected altogether causes an unlikely major reshuffle of portfolios including that of Hill’s.

However, there is a doomsday scenario for Juncker if Bratušek is rejected as a Vice-President and as a Commissioner. She was already at risk from an ongoing corruption enquiry in Slovenia regarding her nomination by her own (heavily defeated) Government when she was Prime Minister.

The problem for Juncker would be to find another senior and capable female candidate from Slovenia that would be able to assume the role of Vice-president. Juncker has already said he must have as least as many women Commissioners as the Barroso Commission. Even the nomination of a new Vice-President from amongst the other Commissioners might trigger reactions that might impact on Hill as part of the reshuffle.

The problem for Cameron is that he spent an enormous amount of capital in Brussels opposing Juncker. If Juncker decides that a reshuffle must involve Hill’s proposed portfolio, will he be so-minded as to placate the UK yet again or will he opt for administrative efficacy?

Tim McNamara is head of the Peercourt consultancy firm. He was previously political editor at the European Commission.