The result of the trialogue negotiations on Regulation (EU) 2019/631 initially seemed to represent a carefully calibrated compromise between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission. In the immediate aftermath, representatives from across the political spectrum expressed varying degrees of satisfaction, presenting the agreement as a constructive step forward, before the Council decided to reject their proposals at the last minute.
For members of The Left, the original outcome represented a meaningful, if incomplete, success. “Despite certain difficulties in cooperation with the Council, we are satisfied with the final outcome,” representatives stated, emphasizing that key amendments had been secured through cooperation with S&D and the Greens. At the same time, they acknowledged that “more could have been achieved in terms of labor protection,” while describing the regulation as “a foundation for future legislation.”
A similar tone came from the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats. Veljko Aleksić described the negotiations as “fruitful and productive,” noting that most compromises were technical rather than ideological.
“We all share the same goal of achieving climate targets” -Veljko Aleksić
Veljko stated, while recognizing that broader impacts — particularly on non-EU countries — would need to be addressed through separate regulatory frameworks.
From the Renew group, Mihajlo Kovač expressed strong support for the outcome, highlighting that their proposals had been incorporated into the final text. “This confirms that we had the right vision from the start,”
“The regulations sets the foundation for future laws that will protect producers, workers, and even countries outside the EU.”– Mihajlo Kovač
The response from the European People’s Party was more reserved. Milica Stankić acknowledged that the agreement reflects “a balance between ambition and political reality,” but expressed disappointment that several proposals — particularly those related to alternative fuels — were not taken forward. She also pointed to what she described as a “restrictive approach” by the Commission and a lack of full recognition of the Parliament’s contributions.
Meanwhile, the Patriots for Europe group emphasized the practical elements of the compromise. Mihajlo Pujić stated that their key priorities — including infrastructure readiness and affordability — were successfully integrated, arguing that:
“The transition is no longer just about targets, but about real economic and social criteria.” – Mihajlo Pujić
Similarly, representatives of the Greens highlighted the importance of maintaining environmental integrity, describing the outcome as “an important step in the right direction,”
“There is still a long way to go before the automotive sector becomes fully sustainable.” – Jelena Batovac
However, this initial narrative of cautious optimism was disrupted by a late development in the final stage of negotiations.
According to sources within the process, the Council of the European Union ultimately decided to reject a number of the Parliament’s proposals after concluding that they would not introduce significant changes to the regulatory framework. Instead, Council representatives argued that the amendments risked creating unnecessary administrative burdens without delivering proportionate benefits.
This shift marks a notable turning point. While earlier phases of the trialogue were characterized by compromise and institutional cooperation, the final outcome suggests a clear limit to that flexibility. The Council’s position reflects a concern that accepting such amendments would amount to “voting against its own interests,” particularly in terms of regulatory efficiency and economic impact.
At the same time, the decision highlights tensions between institutions. The European Commission had encouraged continued compromise, warning that failure to accommodate certain elements could undermine the overall agreement. Yet the Council ultimately chose to prioritise legal clarity and practical feasibility over political alignment.
In this context, the statements made by Parliament representatives take on a different meaning. What was initially framed as a foundation for future legislative progress now appears, at least in part, as an example of the structural limits of the Parliament’s influence within the trialogue process.
The episode underscores a broader reality of EU policymaking. While the Parliament may articulate a more expansive vision of the green transition — one that includes social, industrial, and global dimensions — the final shape of legislation remains constrained by legal competence and interinstitutional balance.
Ultimately, the trialogue outcome reflects not only a compromise on emissions policy, but also a reminder of how that compromise is formed. Ambition may be shared, but its implementation remains contested — especially at the moment when agreement seems closest.