The key point here appears to be an innovation called the so-called "trilogues", which were introduced to accelerate the process of negotiation between the Coun

The key point here appears to be an innovation called the so-called "trilogues", which were introduced to accelerate the process of negotiation between the Council of Ministers (representing national governments),the EU Parliament (elected EU legislators), and the EU Commission (civil service). It seems that this innovative process eliminates a lot of "gridlock" and is too efficient for the liking of the author, a strange complaint. That the legislation which emerges from this is sometimes flawed, or contradicts other legislation, is not a reason to introduce less efficient processes, but to allow greater scrutiny of that legislation which does emerge from the "trilogues". The normal parliamentary mechanism for this is to have several "Readings" where the legislation is scrutinized by different groups of legislators, e.g. an Upper and Lower House. Otherwise, perhaps Brussels has found something useful with the "trilogues", and other national parliaments should adopt a similar process?