Trio presidency of the Council of the EU, introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, requires groups of three member states to draft a common 18-month programme and coordinate their activities. It is meant to improve the continuity of policy-making in the Council, and encourage cooperation between the member states holding the position. However, expert interviews with representatives of three most recent completed presidency Trios show mixed results. Most of the respondents do not recognize many benefits of the Trio, the common programme is frequently seen as a formality, and a lot of cooperation still happens outside the pre-assigned Trios with the preceding and succeeding presidencies, as used to be the case before the Lisbon Treaty. This paper examines and compares the performance of three presidency Trios, connects the findings to previous research, and suggests that structural features of the Trio, such as the composition, position within it, and the common programme, along with previously established country-level factors, like administrative compatibility, economic and political situation, or ideological differences, account for its limited success.
