The Ordinary Legislative Procedure (original) (raw)
Related papers
Are Trilogues a threat to democracy, accountability and transparency in the EU legislative process
Democracy. Accountability. Transparency. These words are probably the ones most people think about whenever the word 'trilogue' in the EU context is mentioned. Often described as a 'black box', the EU has some areas of controversy, especially the so called 'trilogues' which in theory do not exist but are in practice vastly used to reach quick and "efficient" agreements early on in the legislative process 1. These secret meetings involving selected members of the council, parliament and commission have been consistently criticised due to their little or no information disclosure policy which makes it nearly impossible for anyone to know when, where, who, and how important pieces of legislation which affect us all are discussed and decided 2. As a result, individuals, associations and even the European Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly have taken action to try to improve this enigmatic method of negotiating. Especially O'Reilly, who has launched an investigation and organised some meetings with important individuals involved in the process in order to find out more about the way in which trilogues operate and how to improve them 3. This piece of work will examine why these three aspects are essential for the correct functioning of a democratic legal order and then explore whether trilogues are an apparent or real threat to democracy, accountability and transparency and whether the arguments supporting the use of trilogues outweigh its negative consequences. Finally some possible changes to the trilogue process will be suggested. These concerns are all linked since if there is no transparency there is no accountability which leads to a democratic deficit which is possibly the main problem which the European Union has been facing since its creation. The result is clearly reflected by data and statistics such as the latest Eurobarometer revealing that just 37% of Europeans tend to trust the EU and only 55% think their voice does not count or is not heard in Brussels 4. A key facet of a legislative process in a democratic society is the transparency, which strengthens democracy by letting citizens follow the process of decision-making 5. This, the European Ombudsman said, is even more important in the EU's process since people feel especially distant from the decisions taken in Brussels 6. Citizens are entitled to scrutinise all relevant 1 Christine Reh, 'Is informal politics undemocratic? Trilogues, early agreements and the selection model of representation' (2014) (21)(6) Journal of European Public Policy <http://dx.
Perspectives on federalism, 2018
The special issue develops a contextual analysis of EU inter-parliamentary cooperation in the post Lisbon Treaty framework. Indeed, it is possible to claim that there are several sources and causes for renewed EU inter-parliamentary cooperation: first, a voluntary one, i.e. the connection with the Lisbon Treaty’s intent to facilitate a wider democratisation objective; second, this time more a reaction than an initiative, the need to counterbalance the institutional outcomes of the economic and financial crisis that shook the world but particularly the eurozone; and, third, the call for an improvement in existing rules and mechanisms to develop even further democratic (read: parliamentary) input in common policies. The special issue analyses whether current inter-parliamentary mechanisms are suited to react to these challenges. It specifically assesses the practical impact of interparliamentary cooperation on the numerous democratic gaps that still exist in the EU´s multi-layered decision-making process. Its objective is to show, beyond the mere sharing of information and the comparison of best practices at a supranational and transnational level, whether existing inter-parliamentary practices contribute to joint parliamentary scrutiny by involving both the EP and the national parliaments of EU member states.
The Legislative Powers and Impact of the European Parliament
Jcms: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2003
This article investigates the impact of the legislative powers of the European Parliament (EP), particularly the co-decision procedure. After explaining the development of the legislative procedures, the article analyses the extent to which the different procedures have been used since their creation. It then considers how growing legislative power has affected the EP's internal development, how far the EP has been able to influence EU legislation, and whether EP involvement in legislation has enhanced or impeded the efficiency of the EU legislative process. The article concludes by considering possible areas for further reform of the EP's role in the EU's legislative system.
How Institutions Doubt. Reforming the Legislative Procedure of the European Union
2014
This contribution endeavors to explain several dysfunctions in the European Union’s legislative procedure: the drop in the number of legislative decisions, the high degree of consensus in the European Parliament, the opacity of the Council of Ministers, the generalisation of premature agreements in co-decision, and the granting of symbolic rights to national parliaments. These phenomena are interpreted as symptoms of the crisis of confidence afflicting different European institutions’ ability to govern effectively and legitimately. To confront this existential doubt, we conclude by suggesting several mechanisms aimed at a better public awareness of intra- and inter-institutional conflicts.
Legislative Procedures in the European Union: An Empirical Analysis
British Journal of Political Science, 2001
The article uses the legislative history of some 5,000 Parliamentary amendments (see http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/tsebelis) to analyze the role of the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council in the two main legislative procedures in the European Union: cooperation and codecision (I). These procedures have been the subject of theoretical controversies, because according to conventional wisdom codecision increases the powers of the European Parliament, but according to revisionist approaches, the conditional agenda setting powers accorded to the Parliament by cooperation are more important than the veto powers ascribed by codecision.
C4EPIECE, 2023
The EU legislative procedure-trying to strike a delicate balance between sovereignty of member states, interests of the whole community, while giving weight to the representatives of the European electorate. The current analysis describes the legislative procedure of the European Union, the way how sources of Union law, the different Union acts are being adopted. Understanding the process is very important to analyse cases like the current so-called "migration package", as it produces all the typical and interesting signs of an EU legislative process, and is also being followed by all kinds of misunderstandings and confusions as many political actors have strong interests related to that. However, we are not going to focus on the texts of these laws being formed right now (or on the differences of positions of the various actors), we will deal with those and the subject of migration in a later analysis dedicated exclusively to that.
Explaining legislative decision-making in the European Union
The European Union Decides
This book examines how legislation is made in the European Union (EU). Taking decisions in the European Union requires overcoming controversy and disagreement. European decision-makers' ability to resolve controversy has been tested by three developments. First, the number of member states increased from six to 25, with the prospect of further enlargement in the near future. Second, changes to the formal decision-making procedures increased the institutional power of the European Parliament. Third, the European Union expanded its involvement in policy areas from its focus on the internal market and freedom of movement across borders to include economic and monetary union, environmental policy, competition, and social policy among others. There are numerous recent and high-profile examples of the challenges European decision-makers face in reaching political agreements amid controversy. One such example concerned the question of whether Germany should be given an official warning under the Stability Pact for its excessive budget deficit. Germany was not allowed to vote on the proposal to give such a warning, since the warning was directed against itself. Nonetheless, with the help of the Italian Presidency, it managed to turn unanimous support for the proposed warning into a vote against the proposal. The European Commission opposed this decision, and successfully overturned it in the European Court of Justice. This outcome, and the way it was achieved, challenged the view that important decisions We thank Christpher H. Achen, Randall Calvert, Adrienne Héritier, Jan-Erik Lane, Thomas Kö nig, Frans Stokman, and the members of the Decision-making in the European Union (DEU) research group for helpful comments on an earlier version of this chapter.