Abusing the EU for Intergovernmental and Inter-Institutional Battles – How Sustainable Is the Eu's System of Policy-Making? Analysis of Policy Success and Policy Failure in Contested Policy Areas

The migration crisis, the terrorist attacks and Brexit prove that the European Union is facing a number of conflicts and failures. This translates into policy-making processes: migrant quota, border closings and exit conditions. Conflicting preferences and controversy are hardly new concepts, yet there is still no conclusive answer to why certain negotiations succeed while others fail. In the area of border policy, national actors instrumentalized security in Schengen Governance negotiations (2011-2013), but agreed on a compromise benefitting the EP, after a fervent inter-institutional battle. Smart Borders Package (2013-today) had to be withdrawn, as Council and Parliament jointly disagreed on purpose and design requesting more security. In the equally contested area of social policy, the Maternity leave proposal (2008-2015) was also withdrawn, as Council and Parliament could not agree on the substance. The Gender Quota proposal (2012–today) is pushed by the EP, but currently deadlocked in the Council, with member states strongly disagreeing on the EU’s right to intervene, the UK being at the forefront. How successful is the exploitation of national and political sensitivities? Why can consensus be reached in some conflicted cases, but not others? Preliminary findings of comparative qualitative content analysis show that agenda setting and framing play a crucial role in policy success. The key to consensus seems to be networking of trusted relais actors, issue-linkage, coalitions of key actors in both institutions. Policy-making seems to function best when the Commission agenda is favorable to the governments in place and relais actors reign in exploits and power battles.