In Germany, we like to look at developments abroad with the “German gaze”. In other words, all the institutions abroad are described in a very Germanized way. Unfortunately, this is often abbreviated and wrong. With German Vote, I am therefore deliberately focusing on and describing various customs and institutions of the EU in the “Bending Bananas & Co” section. In other words, this is a kind of institutional encyclopaedia.
The trilogue is an attempt to coordinate the three EU institutions involved in legislation. This has advantages and disadvantages – this episode describes this process.
New episodes are always published in the middle of the month, on the 2nd Monday of the month in German (indicated by a [de]). One week later, on the 3rd Monday of the month, there is the same episode in English (indicated by the [en] in the title). It is not exactly identical to the de-episode, but almost.
Please feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn or Instagram. I will also accompany this podcast with further information on these platforms.
Transcription:
In my podcast, I have a glossary segment that describes EU institution and procedures – „Bending Bananas & Co“. In this segment, I like to critically explain certain things. The so-called triloque is an institutional practice with a lot of weight behind it. It originated from a joint declaration back in 2007.
The German Federal Agency for civic education defines the triloque as follows:
„The compromise negotiated in the trilogue is provisional and must then be formally adopted by the council and EP, which usually happens without substantial changes. Trilogues can be organized at any stage of the legislative process. They usually lead to an agreement at first reading, early agreement, or an early agreement at second reading, early second reading agreement.“
In other words, the European Council as the representative of the countries, the EU Parliament as the elected Parliament and the EU Commission as a kind of EU government discuss in advance how laws are to be drafted. The aim is to speed up legislative procedures. The trilogue is classic backroom politics, where transparency and openness may not play such a major role, it is also viewed very critically.
Thilo Kunzemann, press spokesman for the EU Parliament, says:
„I looked at the statistics before the trilogue. The average legislative process from the commission’s proposal to the finnish law took 38 or 40 months, i.e. three or four years.
Over the last 10 or 15 years, the challenges and crises have come one after the other. And it was clear to everyone involved that we had to become faster. We cannot keep pace with the radical upheavals that we are seeing on the left and right and also in Europe if we need three or four years from a proposal to the finalized law. Which then still has to be applied, there are still transitional periods.
Faster legislative process in the EU
And since this trialogue, this so-called informal inter-institutional agreement or negotiation has been in place. Since then, it has been radically accelerated, so it has taken just under a year. This may sometimes take longer. With some decisions on the corona crisis or financial crisis and now also on Ukraine, it can happen even faster, even in six months. But on average it is 25% of what was needed before.
And you pay a certain price for that. Democracy is always an attempt to bring as many partners as possible to the table. Everyone can listen to this. The various organizations, associations and clubs can put forward their points. Then there are various so-called readings in parliament. The two legislators, the council, which represents the states, the governments of the EU, and the parliament, which represents the citizens, have to pass a law together, and the textbook has three readings for this. At the end of the second round, if it is not successful, there is the conciliation committee and then you come to a result – which takes years.
And that is why it was said that we need an informal negotiation where we bring together the people who are working on it centrally, i.e., the lead MEPs, with the key people from the council and the council presidency, and the handful of experts from the commission who are responsible. We bring them together, lock them in the room, and then they just have to agree. They have to come out with an agreement in the end, with a compromise that is acceptable to everyone. And that is much quicker. You can’t do that in one session. Then there are two or three sessions if things get really hairy and sometimes more. At some point, they simply keep the meeting going all night to increase the pressure to negotiate in order to reach a result.
And you can only achieve this intensive working atmosphere if people can really talk freely and openly. If nobody has to worry that a certain demand or concession will immediately lead to media coverage, which then leads to angry calls from the government at home, from the parliamentary group. They need this protected space, but they don’t work in a vacuum. The people who meet there for these negotiations, which of course take place behind closed doors, have a democratically legitimized mandate. And that is very important. You should never forget that when criticizing the Trilogue. The commission is working on a legislative proposal in a long process involving public consultation. He comes to parliament. In the responsible committee, let’s say, the financial issue is discussed, then it comes to the economic committee, then it is discussed in public hearings.
The process is completely open to everyone. You can take part, you can listen to it, you can listen to the recordings of these negotiations. And at the end of these negotiations, the committee adopts its mandate in a public vote. And this mandate is then examined again by the entire plenary. And then you have a negotiating mandate with which these, say, 15 negotiators from Parliament go into this closed room. This means that they are not acting as they see fit, but have a clear mandate from parliament. And the council representatives have the same mandate. In tough negotiations, their governments have also given them a text with the points that they can concede and that they should demand.
And that’s why I don’t think this criticism that this is non-transparent and undemocratic is justified, because although they take a break from the public for a while for these intensive talks, they do so on the basis of a democratic mandate. And we have much quicker decisions afterwards, which then always have to be accepted again. Even if the negotiators were to go their own way and decide on something that is not covered by the democratically elected plenary sessions, it would fall through because it would have to be recognized again. There is still a final vote in the council and in parliament, and all these mechanisms mean that there is no complete uncontrolled growth.“
Marion Walsmann, member of the European Parliament for the European People’s Party (EPP):
„If Ursula von der Leyen has now had her college confirmed and we have then perhaps elected or confirmed it, in November, then there is a program associated with it and in accordance with the program, legislative initiatives will be submitted to parliament by the commission in coordination with the member states. Parliament appoints rapporteurs from the various committees and political groups. And they then have the authority to negotiate until a parliamentary position on this commission draft has just been voted on in parliament. And I myself have been the Rapporteur three times, two reports are still ongoing, and the parliamentary positions on these two ongoing dossiers have been agreed in parliament.
And now it’s time for the so-called trialogue. This is because no law comes into force unless the Commission, which introduced the original draft, leads Parliament with the Rapporteur, who has adopted an amended version in parliament, and the nation-states, which of course have to give their go-ahead, i.e. have reached an agreement in the trialogue, hence the three-page trialogue.
Intensive negotiations in the trialogues
And these are exciting negotiations. You need good seating, strong nerves and a good atmosphere. Because I am going as rapporteur and perhaps now wish to go into the trilogue of my toy safety regulation in the autumn. Then I have the shadow rapporteurs from the relevant committees with me, with whom I also have to reach an agreement if I admit to compromises that go beyond the decision in parliament, so it’s a balancing act, a compromise, a skillful tactical negotiating maneuver.
And in any case, it’s always good when there’s a good atmosphere in these rooms and you can hold out for a long time. Incidentally, it is associated with many symbols. These trialogues end with a handshake between the three people in charge and then a group photo. These words, which are then spoken in the same way everywhere are important. It’s a bit of a ceremony when you reach an agreement like this. And that is something very special.
And that is also the special power that an individual member of parliament can unfold. In the Bundestag or Landtag the groups have the power, not the individual. And this is where the individual member of parliament has to focus on his or her negotiating skills, creativity, formulations building bridges that can be compromised, but never losing sight of what the actual goal of the legislation is.
The exciting thing is that this report then bears the name of the Rapporteur. So if my children ever research what their mother did and Google Walsmann, they’ll find the Walsmann report. And that is also a motivation to get stuck in, but this legislation associated with the name is also a great responsibility. You simply can’t hide behind a faction.“
This was another episode from my podcast series “Bending Bananas & Co”. This segment takes a closer look at EU institutions and procedures. And today the focus was on the trialogue between the EU Parliament Commission and European Council.
Transparency notice for this episode about the trialogue in the EU
Here’s a transparency notice for this episode. This episode includes information and statements from the European Parliament. The statements were recorded during a trip I made to Strasbourg, where I received travel support from the EU Parliament and made use of their facility for journalists, such as the recording studios in Strasbourg. Of course, none of this institution had any influence over the content or direction of this podcast.