@incollection{Kreilinger, author = {Kreilinger, Valentin}, title = {Inter-parliamentary cooperation and its challenges: The case of Economic and Financial Governance}, series = {What form of government for the EU and the Eurozone?}, booktitle = {What form of government for the EU and the Eurozone?}, publisher = {Hart Publ.}, address = {Oxford}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-10199}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {271 -- 288}, language = {en} } @article{Kreilinger, author = {Kreilinger, Valentin}, title = {Possibilities for upgrading inter-parliamentary cooperation after the 2014 European elections}, series = {Polish Quarterly of International Affairs}, volume = {23}, journal = {Polish Quarterly of International Affairs}, number = {1}, publisher = {Polish Institute of International Affairs}, address = {Warschau}, issn = {1230-4999}, pages = {57 -- 68}, abstract = {The parliaments in the EU are facing a choice. They may exploit the existing possibilities, continue business as usual (possibly with declining participation in inter-parliamentary cooperation, so no change), or bypass existing interparliamentary structures. The last and most extreme scenario would mean that some national parliaments, for example the six founding members or the Member States that have adopted the euro, create their own conference, with serious repercussions to "pre-in" countries, to the EU institutions, and to the inclusiveness of economic and financial governance. The second option (business as usual) does not help building a genuine Economic and Monetary Union either. Only the first scenario would help reduce the existing weakness in democratic accountability and legitimacy, both in general, and especially in connection with the genuine EMU in the making. An inter-parliamentary conference as a place to discuss these policies could have the positive effect of gradually becoming an arena in which the future direction of the Union's economic policy is shaped.}, language = {en} } @article{Kreilinger, author = {Kreilinger, Valentin}, title = {Prognosen zur Zusammensetzung und Arbeit des Europ{\"a}ischen Parliaments nach der Wahl 2014}, series = {integration}, volume = {37}, journal = {integration}, number = {1}, publisher = {Nomos Verl.-Ges.}, address = {Baden-Baden}, issn = {0720-5120}, doi = {10.5771/0720-5120-2014-1-3}, pages = {3 -- 20}, abstract = {Vom 22. bis 25. Mai 2014 wird ein neues Europ{\"a}isches Parlament gew{\"a}hlt. Trotz vieler Unw{\"a}gbarkeiten lassen sich bereits m{\"o}gliche Ver{\"a}nderungen durch diese Europawahl skizzieren. Zwei große Trends sind auf der Basis aktueller Prognosen wahrscheinlich: Stimmengewinne f{\"u}r die Fraktion der Progressiven Allianz der Sozialisten und Demokraten (S\&D) bei Verlusten f{\"u}r die Fraktion der Europ{\"a}ischen Volkspartei (EVP) und Zugewinne f{\"u}r populistische und europakritische Parteien zulasten der etablierten Parteien. Sie w{\"u}rden das Europ{\"a}ische Parlament nicht paralysieren, aber eine (noch) st{\"a}rkere Zusammenarbeit der etablierten Parteien forcieren, die auch durch den Prozess und den Zeitplan bis zum Amtsantritt der neuen Europ{\"a}ischen Kommission beg{\"u}nstigt wird. Eine Analyse des Abstimmungsverhaltens der Abgeordneten in der Legislaturperiode 2009-2014 hilft, diese m{\"o}glichen Ver{\"a}nderungen im europ{\"a}ischen Machtgef{\"u}ge besser einzuordnen. Da die beiden großen Fraktionen und politischen Lager gleichauf zu liegen scheinen, ist das Rennen jedoch noch v{\"o}llig offen.}, language = {de} } @incollection{Kreilinger, author = {Kreilinger, Valentin}, title = {Nationale Parlamente}, series = {Jahrbuch der Europ{\"a}ischen Integration 2018}, booktitle = {Jahrbuch der Europ{\"a}ischen Integration 2018}, publisher = {Nomos Verlag}, address = {Baden-Baden}, isbn = {978-3-8452-9103-1}, doi = {10.5771/9783845291031-135}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {135 -- 140}, language = {de} } @incollection{Kreilinger, author = {Kreilinger, Valentin}, title = {Nationale Parlamente}, series = {Jahrbuch der Europ{\"a}ischen Integration 2017}, booktitle = {Jahrbuch der Europ{\"a}ischen Integration 2017}, publisher = {Nomos Verlag}, address = {Baden-Baden}, isbn = {978-3-8452-8489-7}, doi = {10.5771/9783845284897-172}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {173 -- 178}, language = {de} } @phdthesis{Kreilinger, author = {Kreilinger, Valentin}, title = {National parliaments in Europe's post-crisis economic governance}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-2730}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-27309}, school = {Hertie School}, pages = {279}, abstract = {This dissertation provides a comprehensive account of the role of national parliaments in Europe's post-crisis economic governance. It examines national parliaments in the European Semester, in relation to the European Stability Mechanism and the Interparliamentary Conference on Stability, Economic Coordination and Governance and challenges the view that the Euro crisis has only reduced the influence of national parliaments. The analysis moves beyond prerogatives and institutional capacities to actual parliamentary involvement. Scrutinising the different stages of the European Semester remains a challenge for many national parliaments that have been marginalised by this multilevel coordination and surveillance process. In case of the third rescue package for Greece, the overall involvement by national parliaments exceeded what legal provisions would have demanded. But both economic governance domains suffer from asymmetries between those national parliaments that are willing and able to become actually involved and those that are not. One possible remedy against these asymmetries would be to involve national parliaments into economic governance collectively. The provision of Article 13 TSCG and the Interparliamentary Conference established on this basis, however, fall short of collective involvement or joint scrutiny and the experience of negotiating the institutional design of the new Conference even suggests that any kind of joint parliamentary body for the Euro area would be very difficult to realise. As a general overhaul of the Economic and Monetary Union seems indispensable to make the common currency weather-proof, a more symmetric involvement of national parliaments is necessary to strengthen the legitimacy that they supply. In the European Semester this could be achieved via minimum standards for parliamentary involvement, but the tangled web of procedures for ESM rescue packages is likely to persist and interparliamentary cooperation can only be developed incrementally.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Kreilinger, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Kreilinger, Valentin}, title = {National parliaments, surveillance mechanisms and ownership in the Euro Area}, volume = {110}, edition = {Studies and Reports}, publisher = {Jacques Delors Institut}, address = {Berlin}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-19952}, pages = {84}, language = {en} } @article{Kreilinger, author = {Kreilinger, Valentin}, title = {From procedural disagreement to joint scrutiny? The Interparliamentary Conference on Stability, Economic Coordination and Governance}, series = {Perspectives on Federalism}, journal = {Perspectives on Federalism}, number = {10(3)}, issn = {2036-5438}, doi = {10.2478/pof-2018-0035}, pages = {155 -- 183}, abstract = {The provision of Article 13 TSCG to create an Interparliamentary Conference was the starting point for long discussions after which national parliaments and the European Parliament eventually reached a compromise. This article pursues a two-fold objective: It first examines the different phases of interparliamentary negotiations from 2012 to 2015. On the basis of a distinction between three competing models for interparliamentary cooperation, the article shows that the two models of EP-led scrutiny and creating a collective parliamentary counterweight did not prevail: Parliaments agreed that the new Interparliamentary Conference on Stability, Economic Coordination and Governance (SECG) would follow the 'standard' interparliamentary conference (COSAC model). In terms of national parliaments' actual participation, the lowest common denominator compromise has not changed the numbers of participating MPs: Attendance records are stable over time, the size of national delegations continues to vary and participating MPs are still twice as likely to be members of Budget or Finance committees than to be members of European affairs committees.}, language = {en} } @article{Kreilinger, author = {Kreilinger, Valentin}, title = {Scrutinising the European Semester in national parliaments: what are the drivers of parliamentary involvement?}, series = {Journal of European Integration}, journal = {Journal of European Integration}, number = {40(3)}, issn = {1477-2280}, doi = {10.1080/07036337.2018.1450402}, pages = {325 -- 340}, abstract = {How exactly are national parliaments involved in the European Semester? The stronger coordination of fiscal and economic policies in the European Union (EU) in reaction to the sovereign debt crisis has forced national parliaments to adapt their procedures. This article examines how the European Semester is scrutinised and what factors have driven parliamentary activities in the French National Assembly, the German Bundestag, the Irish D{\´a}il and the Portuguese Assembleia between 2012 and 2017. Particularly noteworthy is that legal provisions for a parliamentary debate on the Stability Programme can be ignored in France, that the German Bundestag is much less active in the European Semester than in EU affairs or in the budget process and that the weakness of Ireland's parliament in the annual budget procedure affects its role in the European Semester. This article therefore suggests defining minimum standards for parliamentary involvement and strengthening interparliamentary cooperation.}, language = {en} } @article{FromageKreilinger, author = {Fromage, Diane and Kreilinger, Valentin}, title = {National parliaments' third yellow card and the struggle over the revision of the Posted Workers Directive}, series = {European Journal of Legal Studies}, journal = {European Journal of Legal Studies}, number = {10(1)}, issn = {1973-2937}, pages = {125 -- 160}, abstract = {The Treaty of Lisbon strengthened the role of national parliaments in the EU legislative process by creating the Early Warning System. This procedure offers them the possibility to send reasoned opinions to the European Commission if they have subsidiarity concerns about a legislative proposal. Since 2009 the necessary threshold (i.e. one third of the total number of votes) has only been reached three times. The most recent of these 'yellow cards' was triggered by the Commission's proposal to revise the Posted Workers Directive, an event that allows us to shed some light on how national parliaments use this mechanism and how the European Commission has reacted. The subsidiarity concerns were rejected by the Commission and the legislative process continues despite deep divisions between old and new Member States over the controversial policy issue of revising the Posted Workers Directive.}, language = {en} }