3. Concentration of power, lacking separation of powers, nuclear energy and genetic engineering.
The treaty undermines democratic principles such as the separation of powers, the democratic transfer of sovereign rights, or direct democracy. And it contains issues which majorities in many member countries clearly reject.
Still no separation of powers:
The Lisbon Treaty does nothing to remedy the fundamental problem of lacking separation of powers:
-
The governments of member states (executives) remain as Council and Council of Ministers the most powerful legislator on an EU level.
-
The only directly elected EU institution, namely the Parliament, remains weak and – as the only parliament in the world – has no right to propose any bills nor does it have any say in a series of important policy fields: common foreign and security policy, foreign exchange policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy. In all areas where the Parliament does have a say, it still depends on the agreement of the Council. It has now power of decision of its own. It cannot propose or deselect individual members of the Commission („EU government“) if these should fail. If a commissioner ignores the will of the Parliament and refutes a favoured law, the Parliament could only dismiss all 27 members of the commission: the EU Parliament remains a democratic laughing stock.
No direct democracy:
The population, i.e. the sovereign, has no right to:
Although the sovereign is the highest instance in any democracy, it remains largely powerless in the EU. The Lisbon Treaty only provides for an extremely weak „citizens‘ initiative“. If an initiative by the population manages to collect a certain number of signatures in a set number of member states, the EU Commission is only obliged to deal with their concern. It is not obliged to take any decision, and if it doesn’t do anything, the citizens have no means of taken the decision into their own hands.
Self-empowerment by the EU:
By including a „flexibility clause” the Lisbon Treaty provides the EU with a „competence-competence“ in certain areas: this means it has the power to enlarge its own reach of competence without the authorisation of national sovereigns or parliaments. This is a clear breach of the principle of limited specific authorisation.
The newly won power of the EU allowing it to expand its own competence is inacceptable from a democratic point of view. It paves the way to a European super-central state.
European integration must not be a one-way street. The competences of the EU must be the subject of permanent reviews and must be revocable – if they sovereigns should decide so.
Nuclear power, genetic engineering, and more:
Not least because of the increasing plenitude of power in Brussels, political decisions are made which do not enjoy the support of a majority of the population in most member states.
These are:
-
Liberalisation of public services, such as postal system, energy or railways,
-
Risk technologies, such as nuclear power (Euratom)
-
Genetic engineering: the decision whether an EU region, such as a federal state of Germany or Austria, should be allowed to plant genetically modified agricultural plants or not will be taken on EU level.
This does not only contradict the explicit will of the majority in many countries, it also contravenes the much-cited principle of subsidiarity: Decisions may only be delegated to the next higher level, if the lower level cannot reasonably take this on its own. Question: Can Upper Austria or Bavaria reasonably decide on their own if they would like to plant genetically modified plants or not? This breach of the principle of subsidiarity justifiably stirs up suspicions that the EU often serves multinational companies and their lobbies better than its population.
10255 people from 26 EU member states signed the petition already (since September 2009) | 
