You are here: Home > Opinions > Prof. Vaubel

• Home • 
• Quick Info • 
• Contact • 
• Newsletter

Prof. Vaubel

• Who we are
• What we want
• ERC Supporters
• Documentation
• Background
• Country Section
• Donate
• IRELAND
• Česká republika

Why I object to the Lisbon Treaty

Prof. Roland Vaubel, Universität Mannheim

1. The general empowering clause of Article 308 is to be extended from common market matters to all EU policies (Art. 352 TFEU). This would deprive the national parliaments of any control over the exercise of any EU power granted within the framework of EU policies. All restrictions of EU powers within the various EU policy fields could be removed against the will of the national parliaments. They would lose all control over the general competencies which they share with the EU. In the past, the general empowering clause has been used very frequently – more than thirty times per annum. As long as the clause was confined to “the operation of the common market”, its purpose was to permit more market integration, i.e., remove national barriers and enhance individual freedom and market competition. The amended version would open the floodgates for political integration, i.e., centralisation, thus threatening individual freedom and political competition.
2. The Lisbon Treaty (TFEU) explicitly extends the competencies of the Union to and in a number of fields, e.g., co-ordination of employment, social and health policies (Articles 156, para. 2 and 168, no. 2), sport (Article 165, Section 2), research and technological change (Article 181, Section 2), space policy (Article 189), energy (Article 194), tourism (Article 195), civil protection (Article 196) and administrative co-operation (Article 197). None of these are core functions of a Union government. The extensions are not dramatic but the tendency of giving ever more powers to the Union is worrying – especially in conjunction with the new empowering clause. In energy policy, for example, there are probably some aspects – such as international negotiations with oil and gas exporting countries and the pipeline network – which would benefit from co-ordination among the EU-27. But this does not mean that all aspects of energy policy should fall within the reach of the Union institutions. Since energy policy is a shared power, Union action takes precedence over national action, and if Union action in this field is somehow limited by the Treaty, these limits may be removed with reference to the general empowering clause even though the national parliaments have not granted the powers that would be required. 
3. Article 6 ATEU gives the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union “the same legal value as the Treaty”. The Charter does not only contain negative rights, protecting the individual against state power, but also positive rights, establishing claims on the government such as housing assistance or a free placement service and a host of regulations – most notably a right to „fair and just working conditions“ (Article 31, no. 1). These claims will be interpreted by the European Court of Justice. Since they are binding, they are likely to become a driving force of labour market regulation. 
4. The Lisbon Treaty (Article 16, Section 3 ATEU) introduces population weights and lowers the binding majority requirement for qualified majority decisions of the Council from 73.9 to 65 per cent. This would significantly raise the probability of EU regulation.