Comparative European Politics

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 957–973 | Cite as

Passage to bicameralism: Lisbon’s ordinary legislative procedure at ten

  • Christilla Roederer-RynningEmail author
Original Article


In the system of multilevel democracy emerging from the Lisbon Treaty, the ordinary legislative procedure (OLP) embodies the idea that it is possible to have democratic law-making in a polity characterized by a plurality of organized demoi. This article takes stock of this idea by examining what role democratic aspirations played in the invention of the OLP and how this procedure has affected EU policy-making processes, legislative outputs, and political participation in critical new areas of market regulation. Though the OLP is no silver bullet for EU democracy, it embeds the EU policy-making process in a rule-based logic. Its democratic effects are intimately bound up with the evolving institutions of the so-called legislative trilogues.


Co-decision Ordinary legislative procedure Treaty of Lisbon Democracy Bicameralism Market regulation 



The author thanks Achim Hurrelmann, Justin Greenwood, Ian Cooper, the two anonymous reviewers from Comparative European Politics, and the participants in the Symposium on ‘Democratic Innovations of the Lisbon Treaty,’ Carleton University, June 2, 2017, for helpful comments on different versions of this paper. The author acknowledges financial support from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Grant ES/N018761/1 received as part of the Open Research Area (ORA) Grant 187/2015. Thanks to Tina Guldbrandt Jakobsen for editorial assistance.


  1. Baglioni, S., and A. Hurrelmann. 2016. The Eurozone crisis and citizen engagement in EU affairs. West European Politics 39(1): 104–124.Google Scholar
  2. Bourne, A., and S. Chatzopoulou. 2018. Euroscepticism and the crisis: ‘Critical Europeanism’ and anti-austerity social movements. In The Routledge Handbook of Euroscepticism, ed. B. Leruth, N. Startin, and S. Usherwood, 306–316. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Brandsma, G.J. 2015. Co-decision after Lisbon: The politics of informal trilogues in European Union Lawmaking. European Union Politics 16(2): 300–319.Google Scholar
  4. Bressanelli, E., and N. Chelotti. 2016. The shadow of the European Council: Understanding legislation on economic governance. Journal of European Integration 38(5): 511–525.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, C., and N. Carter. 2010. Is co-decision good for the environment? An analysis of the European Parliament’s green credentials. Political Studies 58(1): 123–142.Google Scholar
  6. Cheneval, F., S. Lavenex, and F. Schimmelfennig. 2015. Demoicracy in the European Union: Principles, institutions, policies. Journal of European Public Policy 22(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
  7. Costello, R., and R. Thomson. 2011. The nexus of bicameralism: Rapporteurs’ impact on decision outcomes in the European Union. European Union Politics 12(3): 337–357.Google Scholar
  8. Curtin, D., and P. Leino. 2017. In search of transparency for EU law-making: Trilogues on the cusp of dawn’. Common Market Law Review 54: 1673–1712.Google Scholar
  9. Daugbjerg, C. 1999. Reforming the CAP: Policy networks and broader institutional structures. Journal of Common Market Studies 37(3): 407–428.Google Scholar
  10. Daugbjerg, C., and P. Feindt. 2017. Post-exceptionalism in public policy: Transforming food and agricultural policy. Journal of European Public Policy 24(11): 1565–1584.Google Scholar
  11. Dionigi, M., and C. Koop. 2017. Investigation of informal trilogue negotiations since the Lisbon Treaty: Added value, lack of transparency, and possible democratic deficit. Report for the European Economic and Social Committee. CES/CSS/13/2016 23284.Google Scholar
  12. Erjavec, E., M. Lovec, and K. Erjavec. 2015. From ‘greening’ to ‘greenwash’: The drivers and discourses of CAP2020 ‘reform’. In The Political Economy of the 2014–2020 Common Agricultural Policy: An Imperfect Storm, ed. J. Swinnen, 215–244. London: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. European Council. 2012. Towards a genuine economic and monetary union. Brussels European Council. 26 June.Google Scholar
  14. European Council. 2013. Conclusions (Multiannual Financial Framework). Brussels European Council. 7–8 February.Google Scholar
  15. European Parliament. 2014. The first CAP reform under the legislative procedure: A political economy perspective. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  16. European Parliament. 2017. Activity report 4 July 2014 to 31 December 2016 on the ordinary legislative procedure (8th parliamentary term). PE 595.931. Last accessed on 5 March 2018.
  17. Fabbrini, S., and U. Puetter. 2016. Integration without supranationalisation: Studying the lead roles of the European Council and the council in post-Lisbon EU politics. Journal of European Integration 38(5): 481–495.Google Scholar
  18. Farrell, H., and A. Héritier. 2003. Formal and informal institutions under co-decision: Continuous constitution-building in Europe. Governance 16(4): 577–600.Google Scholar
  19. Farrell, H., and A. Héritier. 2004. Interorganizational negotiation and intraorganizational power in shared decision-making: Early agreements under co-decision and their impact on the European Parliament and Council. Comparative Political Studies 37(10): 1184–1212.Google Scholar
  20. Farrell, H., and A. Héritier. 2007. Co-decision and institutional change. West European Politics 30(2): 285–300.Google Scholar
  21. Golub, J. 1999. In the shadow of the vote? Decision making in the European Community. International Organization 53(4): 737–768.Google Scholar
  22. Greenwood, J., and C. Roederer-Rynning. 2018. Taming Trilogues: The EU’s Law-making Process in a Comparative Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  23. Hart, K. 2015. The fate of green direct payments in the CAP reform negotiations. In The Political Economy of the 2014–2020 Common Agricultural Policy: An Imperfect Storm, ed. J. Swinnen, 245–276. London: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  24. Héritier, A., and C. Reh. 2012. Co-decision and its discontents: Intra-organisational politics and institutional reform in the European Parliament. West European Politics 35(5): 1134–1157.Google Scholar
  25. Hix, S. 2002. Constitutional agenda-setting through discretion in rule interpretation: Why the European Parliament won at Amsterdam. British Journal of Political Science 32(2): 259–280.Google Scholar
  26. Hix, S. 2007. The European Union as a polity. In Handbook of European Union Politics, ed. K.E. Jorgensen, M.A. Pollack, and B. Rosamond, 141–158. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. 2009. A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
  28. Hurrelmann, A., and S. Baglioni. 2018. Introduction: Multilevel Democracy in the European Union and the Innovations of the Lisbon Treaty. Symposium on Multilevel Democracy in the European Union—Have the Innovations of the Lisbon Treaty Made a Difference? Comparative European Politics, in this issue.Google Scholar
  29. Kastner, L. 2017. Tracing policy influence of diffuse interests: The post-crisis consumer protection finance politics in the US. Journal of Civil Society 13(2): 130–148.Google Scholar
  30. Matthews, A. 2015. The multi-annual financial framework and the 2013 CAP reform. In The Political Economy of the 2014–2020 Common Agricultural Policy, ed. J. Swinnen, 169–192. London: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  31. Nicolaidis, K. 2004. We, the peoples of Europe…. Foreign Affairs 83(6): 97–110.Google Scholar
  32. Nielsen, B., and S. Smeets. 2017. The role of the EU institutions in establishing the banking union. Collaborative leadership in the EMU reform process. Journal of European Public Policy 25(9): 1233–1256.Google Scholar
  33. Norman, P. 2005. The Accidental Constitution: The Making of Europe’s Constitutional Treaty. Brussels: Eurocomment.Google Scholar
  34. Olsen, J.P. 1992. Review of: Euro-Politics Institutions and Policymaking in the ‘New’ European Community by Alberta M. Sbragia. Journal of Public Policy 12(2): 202–203.Google Scholar
  35. Politico. 2017. Pro Brussels Influence: Lawmaker Ins and Outs. Accessed 21 December 2017.
  36. Rasmussen, A. 2006. Delegation and Political Influence: Conference committees in the European Union and the USA. PhD Dissertation, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  37. Rasmussen, A. 2011. ‘Procedural dis(obedience) in Bicameral Bargaining in the United States and the European Union’. Journal of European Integration 33(3).Google Scholar
  38. Rasmussen, M. 2012. Is the European Parliament still a policy champion for environmental interests? Interest Groups and Advocacy 1(2): 239–259.Google Scholar
  39. Rasmussen, N. S. 2018. Multi-level governance as a model in doctrinal legal research: Towards a common framework of analysis? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  40. Rasmussen, A., and C. Reh. 2013. The consequences of concluding co-decision early: Trilogues and intra institutional bargaining success. Journal of European Public Policy 20(7): 1006–1024.Google Scholar
  41. Reh, C. 2014. Is informal politics undemocratic? Trilogues, early agreements and the selection model of representation. Journal of European Public Policy 21(6): 822–841.Google Scholar
  42. Ripoll Servent, A. 2012. Playing the co-decision game? Rules’ changes and institutional adaptation at the LIBE committee. Journal of European Integration 34(1): 55–73.Google Scholar
  43. Ripoll Servent, A. 2014. The role of the European Parliament in international negotiations after Lisbon. Journal of European Public Policy 21(4): 568–586.Google Scholar
  44. Ripoll Servent, A. 2015. Institutional and policy change in the European parliament. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Rittberger, B. 2005. Building Europe’s Parliament: Democratic Representation beyond the Nation-State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rittberger, B. 2006. “No integration without representation!” European integration, parliamentary democracy, and two forgotten communities. Journal of European Public Policy 13(8): 1211–1229.Google Scholar
  47. Rittberger, B. 2012. Institutionalizing representative democracy in the European Union: The case of the European Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies 50(S1): 18–37.Google Scholar
  48. Rittberger, B., and F. Schimmelfennig. 2006. Explaining the constitutionalization of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 13(8): 1148–1167.Google Scholar
  49. Roederer-Rynning, C. 2015. COMAGRI and the ‘CAP after 2013’ reform: In search of a collective sense of purpose. In The Political Economy of the 2014–2020 Common Agricultural Policy, ed. J. Swinnen, 331–356. London: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  50. Roederer-Rynning, C., and J. Greenwood. 2015. The culture of trilogues. Journal of European Public Policy 22(8): 1148–1165.Google Scholar
  51. Roederer-Rynning, C., and J. Greenwood. 2017. The European Parliament as a developing legislature: Coming of age in trilogues. Journal of European Public Policy 24(5): 735–754.Google Scholar
  52. Roederer-Rynning, C., and F. Schimmelfennig. 2012. Bringing codecision to agriculture: A hard case of parliamentarization. Journal of European Public Policy 19(7): 951–968.Google Scholar
  53. Rosén, G. 2017. The impact of norms on political decision-making: How to account for the European Parliament’s empowerment in EU external trade policy. Journal of European Public Policy 24(10): 1450–1470.Google Scholar
  54. Sbragia, A. (ed.). 1992. Euro-politics: Institutions and Policymaking in the ‘New’ European Community. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  55. Schimmelfennig, F. 2010. The normative origins of democracy in the European Union: Towards a transformationalist theory of democratization. European Political Science Review 2(2): 211–233.Google Scholar
  56. Schulz, H., and T. König. 2000. Institutional reform and decision-making efficiency in the European Union. American Journal of Political Science 44(4): 653–666.Google Scholar
  57. Serrichio, F., M. Tsakatika, and L. Quaglia. 2013. Euroscepticism and the global financial crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies 51(1): 51–64.Google Scholar
  58. Statham, P., and H.J. Trenz. 2015. Understanding the mechanisms of EU politicization: Lessons from the Eurozone crisis. Comparative European Politics 13(3): 287–306.Google Scholar
  59. Stie, A.E. 2013. Democratic decision-making in the EU: Technocracy in disguise. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Tsingou, E. 2010. Regulatory reaction to the global credit crisis. Analyzing a policy community under stress. In Global Finance in Crisis: The Politics of International Regulatory Change, ed. E. Helleiner, S. Pagliari, and H. Zimmermann, 21–36. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Weiler, J.H.H. 1991. The transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal 100(8): 2403–2483.Google Scholar

Interviews Cited

  1. Interview 1, with an ECON group policy advisor, European Parliament, 27 September 2017.Google Scholar
  2. Interview 2, with a member of a permanent representation, 28 September 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and Public ManagementUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark

Personalised recommendations