Several EU member state officials have voiced concerns over the outcome of recent trilogue negotiations, arguing that the compromise fails to deliver meaningful changes while increasing regulatory complexity.
In private remarks, officials from the Council indicated that some delegations had initially shown flexibility during negotiations after being warned that rejecting elements of the European Parliament’s position could jeopardise the entire agreement.
However, following the conclusion of the talks, those same officials expressed frustration that the final text did not sufficiently reflect their priorities, with some questioning whether the concessions made had been justified.
Criticism focused in particular on the perceived lack of substantive change in the proposal, with concerns that the agreed framework risks adding administrative burdens without clear policy gains.
Some officials also pointed to internal divisions within the Council, suggesting that the Presidency had come under significant pressure during the final stages of the negotiations. They described the process as politically sensitive, with competing national and sectoral interests shaping the outcome.
Despite the criticism, the agreement was ultimately reached as part of a broader effort to secure progress on the file and avoid a breakdown in negotiations.
Leave a Reply