Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The European Parliament in Times of EU Crisis pp 121–141Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Taming Trilogues: The EU’s Law-Making Process in a Comparative Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: European Administrative Governance ((EAGOV))

Abstract

Trilogues have become the modus operandi of EU decision-making. They are an informal but institutionalised mechanism providing for in camera discussions of legislative texts between the three main EU decision-making institutions, with a view to securing legislative compromises. Trilogues present risks to an organ of parliamentary representation through their potential to depoliticise conflict and by reducing the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process. We examine how the European Parliament (EP) has responded to trilogues and what this response tells us about the development of the EP as an institutionalised organ of representative democracy. We compare these with arrangements for bicameral conflict resolution in the United States, where similar issues are presented by informal mechanisms of decision-making. We assess the institutionalisation of trilogues from a democratic perspective, highlighting achievements and future challenges, and the value of these findings for the ongoing reflection on the EP as a normal parliament and the role of informal institutions in EU law-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The authors acknowledge financial support from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), grant ES/N018761/1 received as part of the Open Research Area (ORA) grant 187/2015. Part of the material used in this chapter comes from the field research and interviews conducted by Christilla Roederer-Rynning in Washington, DC from April to July 2017.

  2. 2.

    Commonly referred to as the Council of Ministers. We use the term ‘Council’ in the remainder of the text.

  3. 3.

    The EP, the Council, and the European Commission.

  4. 4.

    This figure includes files concluded at first or early second reading. Early second reading files typically reflect the inheritance of first reading positions adopted at the end of the preceding legislative term (European Parliament 2017). Early second reading is where ‘the agreement between the Council and Parliament is reflected in the Council’’s Common Position rather than the Parliament’’s first reading report. This may be because a compromise was reached between the two only after Parliament had adopted its first reading report’ (House of Lords n.d.)

  5. 5.

    2007 inter-institutional agreement on codecision, concluded between the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission.

  6. 6.

    2012 and 2017 reforms of the EP rules of procedure.

  7. 7.

    In EP8, the largest in the first half term involved 14, for the General Data Protection Regulation.

  8. 8.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/us/politics/women-health-care-senate.html?mcubz=3.

References

  • Access Info Europe. (2015). Contribution to European Ombudsman Public Consultation on the Transparency of Trilogues. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/correspondence.faces/en/67629/html.bookmark.

  • Berthier, A. (2016). Transparency in EU Law Making. ERA Forum, 17, 423–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, S., & Lee, F. (2016). Making Deals in Congress. In J. Mansbridge & C. J. Martin (Eds.), Political Negotiation: A Handbook. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bipartisan Policy Center. (2017, March 28). Proposals to Strengthen and Protect Congress’ Legislative Capacities. Bipartisan Policy Center Seminar, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsma, G. J. (2015). Co-Decision After Lisbon: The Politics of Informal Trilogues in European Union Lawmaking. European Union Politics, 16(2), 300–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broniecki, P. (2017). Is Informal Decision Making in Bicameral Legislatures Unrepresentative? Paper prepared for presentation to the 15th Biennial Conference of the European Union Studies Association, Miami, May 4–6, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownstein, R. (2013, May 11). Gangmen Style. National Journal, p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busby, A. (2013). Normal Parliament’: Exploring the Organisation of Everyday Political Life in an MEPs Office. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(1), 94–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, C. (2013). Consensus and Compromise Become Ordinary – But At What Cost? A Critical Analysis of the Impact of the Changing Norms of Codecision Upon European Parliament Committees. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(7), 988–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkel, J. (2005). International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework. International Organization, 59(4), 801–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly Jr., W. F., Pitney, J., & Smith, G. J. (2017). Is Congress Broken? The Virtues and Defects of Partisanship and Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crombez, C., & Hix, S. (2015). Legislative Activity and Gridlock in the European Union. British Journal of Political Science, 45(3), 477–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, D., & Leino, P. (2017). In Search of Transparency for EU Law-Making: Trilogues on the CUSP of Dawn. Common Market Law Review, 54, 1673–1712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, M. (2015). Single Markets: Economic Integration in Europe and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • EU Observer. (2014). Secret EU Lawmaking: The Triumph of the Trilogue. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from http://euobserver.com/investigations/123555.

  • European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi). (2015). Response to the European Ombudsman’s Public Consultation on the Transparency of Trilogues. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/correspondence.faces/en/67665/html.bookmark.

  • European Economic and Social Committee. (2017). Investigation of Informal Trilogue Negotiations Since the Lisbon Treaty – Added Value, Lack of Transparency and Possible Democratic Deficit, Contract No. CES/CSS/13/2016 23284.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Ombudsman. (2015). Trilogues and Transparent Law Making. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/activities/calendarevent.faces/en/1001/html.bookmark.

  • European Ombudsman. (2016). Decision of the European Ombudsman Setting Out Proposals Following Her Strategic Enquiry OI/8/2015/JAS Concerning the Transparency of Trilogues. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/decision.faces/en/69206/html.bookmark.

  • European Parliament. (2014). Committee Statistical Report: 7th Legislature 2009–2014, DGIPOL – Unit for Legislative Coordination.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. (2017). Activity Report on the Ordinary Legislative Procedure, 4 July 2016–31 December 2016 (8th Parliamentary Term). Retrieved May 9, 2017, from http://www.epgencms.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/upload/7c368f56-983b-431e-a9fa-643d609f86b8/Activity-report-ordinary-legislative-procedure-2014-2016-en.pdf.

  • European Parliament. (n.d.). Completing the Legislative Cycle: Legislation: Trilogue Negotiations. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/the-secretary-general/resource/static/files/Documents%20section/SPforEP/Trilogue_negotiations.pdf.

  • Farrell, H., & Héritier, A. (2004). Interorganizational Negotiation and Intraorganizational Power in Shared Decision-Making: Early Agreements Under Codecision and Their Impact on the European Parliament and Council. Comparative Political Studies, 37(10), 1184–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (2001). The Origins of Political Order. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, J., & Roederer-Rynning, C. (2015). The “Europeanization” of the Basel Process: Financial Harmonization Between Globalization and Parliamentarization. Regulation and Governance, 9(4), 325–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heitshusen, V. (2014). Introduction to the Legislative Process in the US Congress. Congresional Research Service, 7–5700. Retrieved September 7, 2018, from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42843.pdf.

  • Héritier, A., & Reh, C. (2012). Codecision and Its Discontents: Intra-Organisational Politics and Institutional Reform in the European Parliament. West European Politics, 35(5), 1134–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S., Noury, A., & Roland, G. (2007). Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords. (n.d.). Codecision and National Parliamentary Scrutiny – European Union Committee. Retrieved May 9, 2017, from https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeucom/125/12504.htm.

  • Huntington, S. (1965). Political Development and Political Decay. World Politics, 17(3), 386, 430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International New York Times. (2014, April 24). E.U. Chided for Lack of Openness. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://news-business.vlex.com/vid/chided-corruption-growing-distrust-507432674.

  • Jancic, D. (2015). Transatlantic Regulatory Interdependence, Law and Governance: The Evolving Roles of the EU and US Legislatures. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 17, 334–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardasheva, R. (2012). Trilogues in the EU Legislature. http://raya.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/Trilogues_in_the_EU_Legislature.pdf. Accessed 6 September 2018.

  • Kreppel, A. (2002). The European Parliament and Supranational Party System: A Study in Institutional Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oleszek, W. (1974). House-Senate Relationships: Comity and Conflict. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 411(1), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oleszek, W. (2008). Whither the Role of Conference Committees: An Analysis. Congressional Research Service, CRS Report RL34611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olezsek, W., Olezsek, M., Rybicky, E., & Heniff, B. (2016). Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process (10th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, J. (2001). The Choice for EU Theorists: Establishing a Common Framework for Analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 39(3), 289–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, A. (2011). Procedural Dis(Obedience) in Bicameral Bargaining in the United States and the European Union. Journal of European Integration, 33(3), 267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, A., & Reh, C. (2013). The Consequences of Concluding Codecision Early: Trilogues and Intra Institutional Bargaining Success. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(7), 1006–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reh, C. (2014). Is Informal Politics Undemocratic? Trilogues, Early Agreements and the Selection Model of Representation. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(6), 822–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripoll Servent, A. (2015). Institutional and Policy Change in the European Parliament: Deciding on Freedom, Security and Justice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ripoll Servent, A., & Panning, L. (2017). Eurosceptics in Trilogue Settings: Intra-Institutional Interest Formation and Contestation. Paper prepared for presentation to the 15th Biennial Conference of the European Union Studies Association, May 4–6, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, D. A. (2016). The U.S. Congress: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roederer-Rynning, C. (forthcoming). Passage to Bicameralism: Lisbon’s Ordinary Legislative Procedure at Ten. Comparative European Politics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roederer-Rynning, C., & Greenwood, J. (2015). The Culture of Trilogues. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(8), 1148–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roederer-Rynning, C., & Greenwood, J. (2017). The European Parliament as a Developing Legislature: Coming of Age in Trilogues. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(5), 735–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sbragia, A. (Ed.). (1992). Euro-Politics: Institutions and Policymaking in the ‘New’ European Community. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the Grassroots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton, M., & Raunio, T. (2003). Codecision Since Amsterdam: A Laboratory for Institutional Innovation and Change. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(2), 171–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stie, A. E. (2013). Democratic Decision-Making in the EU: Technocracy in Disguise? Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Transparency International. (2015). Transparency International’s Reply to the European Ombudsman. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/correspondence.faces/en/67617/html.bookmark.

  • Zakaria, F. (2003). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. New York: Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland

    Justin Greenwood

  2. University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Christilla Roederer-Rynning

Authors
  1. Justin Greenwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christilla Roederer-Rynning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin Greenwood .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sciences Po Bordeaux, Centre Emile Durkheim, Pessac Cedex, France

    Olivier Costa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Greenwood, J., Roederer-Rynning, C. (2019). Taming Trilogues: The EU’s Law-Making Process in a Comparative Perspective. In: Costa, O. (eds) The European Parliament in Times of EU Crisis. European Administrative Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97391-3_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation