Informal negotiations have become the norm in the European Union legislative process. Yet, researchers are divided over the effects of this change on the European Commission's ability to defend the content of its proposals from modifications by the co-legislators. This article addresses this puzzle by using a fine-grained measure of whether informal negotiations took place which includes trivial agreements, namely legislation adopted in first reading because the co-legislators agree on the content, as a specific category. The results suggest that informal negotiations do not lead to more changes to the Commission's proposals than the formal process. This calls for a better consideration of trivial agreements in studies of the European Union legislative process.
BeckerSBauerMWConnollyS, et al. (2016) The Commission: Boxed in and constrained, but still an engine of integration. West European Politics39(5): 1011–1031.
2.
BrandsmaGJ (2015) Co-decision after Lisbon: The politics of informal trilogues in European Union lawmaking. European Union Politics16(2): 300–319.
3.
BrandsmaGJDionigiMKGreenwoodJ, et al. (2021) Trilogues in Council: Disrupting the diplomatic culture?Journal of European Public Policy28(1): 10–31.
4.
BronieckiP (2020) Power and transparency in political negotiations. European Union Politics21(1): 109–129.
5.
BuneaAThomsonR (2015) Consultations with interest groups and the empowerment of executives: Evidence from the European Union. Governance28(4): 517–531.
6.
BurnsC (2014) The European Commission as a policy actor under the ordinary legislative procedure. In: 7th Pan-European conference on the European Union, The Hague, Netherlands, 5–7 June 2014.
7.
CostaODehousseRTrakalovaA (2011) La codécision et les” accords précoces": Progrès ou détournement de la procédure législative Notre Europe. Etudes et Recherche84: 1–35.
8.
CostelloRThomsonR (2011) The nexus of bicameralism: Rapporteurs’ impact on decision outcomes in the European Union. European Union Politics12(3): 337–357.
9.
CostelloRThomsonR (2013) The distribution of power among EU institutions: Who wins under codecision and why?Journal of European Public Policy20(7): 1025–1039.
10.
CrombezCVangervenP (2014) Procedural models of European Union politics: Contributions and suggestions for improvement. European Union Politics15(2): 289–308.
11.
CrossJPHermanssonH (2017) Legislative amendments and informal politics in the European Union: A text reuse approach. European Union Politics18(4): 581–602.
12.
De RuiterR (2013) Under the radar? National parliaments and the ordinary legislative procedure in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy20(8): 1196–1212.
13.
DionigiMKKoopC (2017) Investigation of informal trilogue negotiations since the Lisbon Treaty – Added value, lack of transparency and possible democratic deficit. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). Available at: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-01-17-783-en-n.pdf(accessed 18 January 2024).
14.
FarrellHHéritierA (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 Studies37(10): 1184–1212.
15.
FranchinoFMariottoC (2013) Explaining negotiations in the conciliation committee. European Union Politics14(3): 345–365.
16.
FuglsangNOlsenKB (2009) Staying in the loop-the Commission’s role in first reading agreements. EPIN Working Paper No. 25, pp. 1–7.
17.
GavaRJaquetJMSciariniP (2021) Legislating or rubber-stamping? Assessing parliament’s influence on law-making with text reuse. European Journal of Political Research60(1): 175–198.
HägeFMNaurinD (2013) The effect of codecision on Council decision-making: Informalization, politicization and power. Journal of European Public Policy20(7): 953–971.
20.
HartlappMMetzJRauhC (2014) Which Policy for Europe?: Power and Conflict inside the European Commission. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
HodsonD (2013) The little engine that wouldn’t: Supranational entrepreneurship and the Barroso Commission. Journal of European Integration35(3): 301–314.
22.
HoppeA (2020) The devil is in the process: an analysis of the impact of negotiation processes in trilogues on EU legislation. PhD Thesis, Utrecht University, Netherland.
KreppelA (2018) Bicameralism and the balance of power in EU legislative politics. The Journal of Legislative Studies24(1): 11–33.
25.
KreppelAOztasB (2017) Leading the band or just playing the tune? Reassessing the agenda-setting powers of the European Commission. Comparative Political Studies50(8): 1118–1150.
26.
LalouxT (2020) Informal negotiations in EU legislative decision-making: A systematic review and research agenda. European Political Science19(3): 443–460.
27.
LalouxTDelreuxT (2018) How much do agents in trilogues deviate from their principals’ instructions? Introducing a deviation index. Journal of European Public Policy25(7): 1049–1067.
28.
LalouxTPanningL (2021) Why defend something I don’t agree with? Conflicts within the Commission and legislative amendments in trilogues. Politics and Governance9(3): 40–51.
29.
LupoN (2018) The Commission’s power to withdraw legislative proposals and its ‘parliamentarisation’, between technical and political grounds. European Constitutional Law Review14(2): 311–331.
30.
NugentNRhinardM (2016) Is the European Commission really in decline?Journal of Common Market Studies54(5): 1199–1215.
31.
NugentNRhinardM (2019) The ‘political’ roles of the European Commission. Journal of European Integration41(2): 203–220.
32.
RasmussenA (2011) Early conclusion in bicameral bargaining: Evidence from the co-decision legislative procedure of the European Union. European Union Politics12(1): 41–64.
33.
RasmussenARehC (2013) The consequences of concluding codecision early: trilogues and intra-institutional bargaining success. Journal of European Public Policy20(7): 1006–1024.
34.
RauhC (2021) One agenda-setter or many? The varying success of policy initiatives by individual Directorates-General of the European Commission 1994–2016. European Union Politics22(1): 3–24.
35.
RehCHéritierABressanelliE, et al. (2013) The informal politics of legislation: Explaining secluded decision making in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies46(9): 1112–1142.
36.
Ripoll ServentA (2018) The European Parliament. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
37.
Roederer-RynningCGreenwoodJ (2015) The culture of trilogues. Journal of European Public Policy22(8): 1148–1165.
38.
TaceaA (2021) A new research agenda: How European institutions influence law-making in justice and home affairs. Politics and Governance9(3): 5–15.
39.
ThomsonR (2011) Resolving Controversy in the European Union: Inputs, Processes and Outputs in Legislative Decision-Making Before and After Enlargement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
ThomsonRHosliM (2006) Who has power in the EU? The Commission, Council and Parliament in legislative decision-making. Journal of Common Market Studies44(2): 391–417.
41.
ToshkovDRasmussenA (2012) Time to decide: The effect of early agreements on legislative duration in the EU. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP)16: 1–24.
42.
TsebelisGGarrettG (2001) The institutional foundations of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism in the European Union. International Organization55(2): 357–390.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
