The Informal Politics of Co-Decision: Trilogues and Early Agreements in the EU's Legislative Procedure

Lead Research Organisation: University College London
Department Name: Political Science

Abstract

Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.
 
Title EUDO 2010 : Christine Reh 
Description You Tube Video taken at European Democracy Observatory (EUDO) Dissemination Conference, Brussels, 18-19 November 2010 
Type Of Art Film/Video/Animation 
Year Produced 2010 
Impact No concrete impact but 238 views by November 2014. 
URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Kphv5bzd4&noredirect=1
 
Description The project investigated a widespread yet understudied trend in European Union (EU) politics: the shift of decision-making from public inclusive to restricted secluded arenas, and the resulting "informalisation" of the political process. The project adopted a mixed-methods design to investigate the reasons for and consequences of informal politics, combining theory-guided empirical research (quantitative hypothesis-testing; qualitative process-tracing; single-outcome study), normative evaluation and policy-recommendations.



In close collaboration with Professor Adrienne Héritier (European University Institute), the following findings have been generated to date:



1. The statistical analysis of all 797 co-decision procedures between mid-1999 and mid-2009 shows that decision-makers "go informal" for functionalist reasons (to accommodate a high number of negotiators, legislative workload and complexity), and because they are socialised into inter-institutional norms of cooperation. Against our theoretical expectations, policy-type, media attention and the Council Presidency's priorities show no explanatory power.



2. The preliminary analysis of seven case studies, based on 31 in-depth interviews with key decision-makers and primary documents from the legislative process, supports the statistical findings but suggests political urgency, decision-timetables and negotiators' personalities as additional explanations for the use of informal politics.



3. The single-outcome study of the European Parliament (EP)'s response to informalisation shows that the regulation of fast-track legislation is highly contested. Adoption of the 2009 rules was possible only because a critical number of early agreements (EAs) coincided with a wider internal reform agenda; the former increased the visibility of powershifts and reputational costs, the latter allowed package deals and the strategic use of norms. Challenged legitimacy and intra-institutional discontent seem to be the EP's price for empowerment and efficient co-legislation.



4. To evaluate the democratic consequences of fast-track legislation, standards of legitimate decision-making were derived from normative theory. Evaluation varies with the standard applied; informal politics leaves formal representation largely in tact, increases efficiency and fosters accommodation, but challenges deliberation and accountability. This challenge is particularly acute where an informal decision is not preceded or followed by public debate; balanced representation in the informal arena is not guaranteed; pre-decisions are rubberstamped; and procedural rights are de facto curtailed.



5. The normative standards and empirical findings subsequently informed policy-recommendations on the EP's 2012 review of its 2009 rules of co-legislation. Given Parliament's role as a guarantor of EU legitimacy, recommendations put a premium on inclusiveness and transparency, and suggest a set of rules designed to maintain efficient negotiation for technical proposals, facilitate effective decision-making on urgent files, and strengthen the overall legitimacy of the EU's legislative process.
Exploitation Route Since their introduction in 1999, first-reading agreements have increased dramatically, accounting for 77% in the current legislature. Considering that the European Parliament (EP) was empowered to make EU legislation more inclusive and transparent, this trend puzzles scholars and practitioners alike. As exemplified by the 2009 House of Lords Report on Codecision and National Parliamentary Scrutiny, by EP President Martin Schulz' 2012 inaugural speech, and by the on-going reform of Parliament's rules of co-legislation, the informal politics of co-decision is subject to intense political debate in Brussels and national capitals.



Throughout its lifespan, the project therefore engaged with non-academic user communities



• through knowledge transfer with practitioners at all research stages,

• by presenting its findings at a dissemination conference in Brussels;

• by running practitioners' workshops in Florence and Brussels;

• by cooperating with the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in Brussels;

• by directly intervening in the political debate through publication of a frequently downloaded CEPS policy-brief.



The project explains the reasons for fast-track legislation, analyses and evaluates the consequences of informal politics, and makes concrete recommendations on how to reform the practice of negotiating early agreements (EAs). This knowledge is of potential use for



• national and European politicians and policy-makers interested in the impact of formal institutional reform on de facto parliamentary and democratic practices;

• national and European politicians and policy-makers interested in the conditions under which institutional change and legislative practice can lead to popular (dis-) discontent and (dis-) engagement;

• officials and policy-makers involved in EU legislation, e.g. via the co-decision units in the EP and Council;

• Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) engaged in the on-going reform of fast-track legislation, in particular MEPs on the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the EP's Vice-President for Conciliation, and the EP's President;

• national parliaments concerned by the secluded negotiation of EAs;

• civil society organisations monitoring the democratic quality of EU decision-making;

• public interest groups, lobbyists and consultancies identifying the most effective access routes to influence EU legislation;

• think-tanks and opinion-brokers in the field of democracy and citizenship in Europe;

• European citizens voting in EP elections. Since the informal politics of co-decision exemplifies a more general trend towards secluded decision-making and informal governance in national, European and global politics, the research is expected to make a contribution beyond the sub-discipline of EU Politics. The project aims to influence the wider study of legislative politics, decision-making and informal governance in Comparative Politics, International Relations and Political Theory through its



a) conceptualisation of informal politics;

b) theoretical framework explaining why decision-makers "go informal";

c) empirical analysis of fast-track legislation from 1999-2009;

d) framework for the normative evaluation of informal politics;

e) future research capacity in the form of an original large-n dataset.



More specifically, the research has the potential to inform



• EU scholars interested in decision-making and legislative politics;

• Comparative Politics scholars interested in institutional reform and informal politics;

• International Relations scholars interested in the complexity of global governance;

• Political Theorists interested in the legitimacy of democratic institutions;

• Negotiation scholars interested in the pre-negotiation of international conferences;

• Legal scholars interested in how formal Treaties play out in the EU's political process.
Sectors Government, Democracy and Justice
URL http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/research/esrc-project
 
Title The Informal Politics of Codecision 
Description New dataset on all 797 legislative files concluded under the EU's codecision procedure between 1999 and 2009. Key variables include: outcome variable (early agreement yes/no); key characteristics of the legislative file (legal nature, policy area, complexity, salience, policy type, duration); key characteristics of the main negotiators (priorities of the Council Presidency, ideological distance between Parliament's rapporteur and national minister, Presidency's workload). 
Type Of Material Database/Collection of data 
Year Produced 2014 
Provided To Others? Yes  
Impact The dataset has only been made publicly available in June 2014. The main publication resulting from the dataset so far (APSA conference paper 2010, subsequently published in Comparative Political Studies 2013 [online first 2011] has been cited 43 times by November 2014. 
URL http://www.eui.eu/Projects/EUDO-Institutions/DatasetonTheInformalPoliticsofCodecision.aspx
 
Description Practitioners' workshops and policy brief, organised and published in cooperation with the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in Brussels. 
Form Of Engagement Activity Participation in an activity, workshop or similar
Part Of Official Scheme? No
Geographic Reach International
Primary Audience Policymakers/politicians
Results and Impact In cooperation with the leading Brussels think tank Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), the activity intervened in the on-going political debate in 2012 about how to reform the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure with regard to fast-track legislation. The activity included a closed practitioners' workshop in Brussels (April 2012); the public launch of a policy-brief at CEPS (May 2012); the dissemination of the policy-brief to all members of the EP's Constitutional Affairs Committee ahead of the deadline for amendments; the subsequent online and print publication of the policy-brief.

Publication of "How to Negotiate under Co-Decision in the EU: Reforming Trilogues and First-Reading Agreements" (with Lukas Obholzer). CEPS Policy Brief No 270, May 2012. (1167 downloads one year after publication)
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity 2012
URL http://www.ceps.eu/book/how-negotiate-under-co-decision-eu-reforming-trilogues-and-first-reading-agr...