Abstract
The rotating presidency of the European Council is a curious, and unusual, institutional feature. I propose a formal theoretic model that compares a variety of decision-making procedures, including rotating the leadership position in a decision-making council, referendums on each policy issue, and electing a Council president. From the results of the model I conclude that the current version of the rotating presidency has a lot to recommend it. Rotating agenda-setting authority allows for the exploration of new mixtures of policies that might not be discovered or tried under other kinds of procedures. However, I also argue that, once the European Union expands to over 20 members, the procedure may no longer be sustainable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
