I don’t much think that Chat Control is desirable as a policy, but I suspect that you won’t find many democracies out there where passing legislation wasn’t tried again after failing. If that alone makes a democracy a joke, I think that there wouldn’t be many non-joke democracies.
I think that the anti-democratic impulse here is that they are trying to get this by any means possible. They were refused by the elected parliament and they are still trying to get their chat control by trying it in other legislation, other channels and so on. That means that they are just using the democratic process and are not accepting that elected representatives refused their proposal. That is antidemocratic.
If that alone makes a democracy a joke, I think that there wouldn’t be many non-joke democracies.
Which would be a correct statement. There should be at least a timeout before a legislation can be proposed again, with changes substantial enough to justify the new vote.
That’s a thought, though that’ll also introduce some new political strategies that one might not want, like making poison-pilling legislation a much-more-powerful move or immediately proposing and voting down legislation just before a given legislature departs to kill the ability of the incoming legislators to pass that legislation.
It also may be hard to draw that “substantial enough” line. Similar problem to determining what qualifies as a rider for the purposes of anti-rider restrictions (“you can’t just attach unrelated legislation to legislation” and “well, what qualifies as unrelated?”).
I think this should be somewhat discouraged in a democracy, though. Decisions have to be binding in some form. You can’t just do 5 and then randomly discard 4 and go with the one result you like. And for some reason that’s supposed to be the binding one. I mean it’s a bit tricky. But ultimately it’s the same kindergarden game like you’ll ask your mom to allow something and after she says no you’ll go to your dad and ask him, then your grandparents, uncle… and at some point some adult is busy with other stuff, doesn’t pay attention and you get your “yes” and you’ll do it. It’s a weird thing kids do, not a feature of a democracy.
And in democratic systems it leads to the same discussion blocking the agenda again and again because of some people’s dispute. And other weird things like in the USA, where the first official act of a new president is, to cancel as much bills from the previous administration as possible.
I mean there’s reasons to do it. But I still think it’s mostly a dark procedure within a democratic system.
And other kind of law has it covered. For example court rulings. You’ll need substantial new evidence. Or a changed situation to re-do their binding decisions. And that’s for good reasons. (I think in philosophy of law it’s called “non bis in idem” or double jeopardy doctrine)
Decisions have to be binding in some form. You can’t just do 5 and then randomly discard 4 and go with the one result you like.
Funny how that works though. As long as something doesn’t pass, you can try again as many times as you want but the moment something passes its a “done thing” and can’t be undone. Brexit is the example of the latter. Obviously a stupid and damaging decision that cannot be voted on again because “we already voted once.”
Yes and no. Sometimes good legislation fails too, and needs a repeat vote.
The important thing is that wildly unpopular laws should be directly vetoable by the population - threatening to vote out a legislator has never been a sufficient threat to make them accountable.
Is there precedent for this in Europe? I can’t remember good things which were repeated. They tend to either succeed or fail but that’s basically it. Or political parties rallye to do something but then they don’t. Or can’t agree within the coalition. Or there’s other pressing issues after the election and it gets postponed… But they don’t really say, that’s what we promised, we failed and we’ll put it on the agenda again 5 months later?!
we are round 4 with chat control, maybe even more, also the voted parlament is only one of 3 instances who work on laws and has no right to peopose them themselves, both the council and the commission are not elected and have no legitimacy given by the people I’m being generous by calling the EU a Democracy at all.
The EU is a Democracy like Fetterman is a Democrat
I don’t much think that Chat Control is desirable as a policy, but I suspect that you won’t find many democracies out there where passing legislation wasn’t tried again after failing. If that alone makes a democracy a joke, I think that there wouldn’t be many non-joke democracies.
I think that the anti-democratic impulse here is that they are trying to get this by any means possible. They were refused by the elected parliament and they are still trying to get their chat control by trying it in other legislation, other channels and so on. That means that they are just using the democratic process and are not accepting that elected representatives refused their proposal. That is antidemocratic.
the anti-democracy wave is crazy right now. This is exactly what all of these dictators and wannabe dictators want us to do - give up.
Which would be a correct statement. There should be at least a timeout before a legislation can be proposed again, with changes substantial enough to justify the new vote.
That’s a thought, though that’ll also introduce some new political strategies that one might not want, like making poison-pilling legislation a much-more-powerful move or immediately proposing and voting down legislation just before a given legislature departs to kill the ability of the incoming legislators to pass that legislation.
It also may be hard to draw that “substantial enough” line. Similar problem to determining what qualifies as a rider for the purposes of anti-rider restrictions (“you can’t just attach unrelated legislation to legislation” and “well, what qualifies as unrelated?”).
Single issue voting
I think this should be somewhat discouraged in a democracy, though. Decisions have to be binding in some form. You can’t just do 5 and then randomly discard 4 and go with the one result you like. And for some reason that’s supposed to be the binding one. I mean it’s a bit tricky. But ultimately it’s the same kindergarden game like you’ll ask your mom to allow something and after she says no you’ll go to your dad and ask him, then your grandparents, uncle… and at some point some adult is busy with other stuff, doesn’t pay attention and you get your “yes” and you’ll do it. It’s a weird thing kids do, not a feature of a democracy.
And in democratic systems it leads to the same discussion blocking the agenda again and again because of some people’s dispute. And other weird things like in the USA, where the first official act of a new president is, to cancel as much bills from the previous administration as possible.
I mean there’s reasons to do it. But I still think it’s mostly a dark procedure within a democratic system.
And other kind of law has it covered. For example court rulings. You’ll need substantial new evidence. Or a changed situation to re-do their binding decisions. And that’s for good reasons. (I think in philosophy of law it’s called “non bis in idem” or double jeopardy doctrine)
Funny how that works though. As long as something doesn’t pass, you can try again as many times as you want but the moment something passes its a “done thing” and can’t be undone. Brexit is the example of the latter. Obviously a stupid and damaging decision that cannot be voted on again because “we already voted once.”
Yes and no. Sometimes good legislation fails too, and needs a repeat vote.
The important thing is that wildly unpopular laws should be directly vetoable by the population - threatening to vote out a legislator has never been a sufficient threat to make them accountable.
I vote for “expands rights? Can repeat. Reduces rights? Has to wait”.
Is there precedent for this in Europe? I can’t remember good things which were repeated. They tend to either succeed or fail but that’s basically it. Or political parties rallye to do something but then they don’t. Or can’t agree within the coalition. Or there’s other pressing issues after the election and it gets postponed… But they don’t really say, that’s what we promised, we failed and we’ll put it on the agenda again 5 months later?!
In Switzerland we rejected women’s right to vote in 1959 and then it passed in 1971. I am certain that we have many such examples.
we are round 4 with chat control, maybe even more, also the voted parlament is only one of 3 instances who work on laws and has no right to peopose them themselves, both the council and the commission are not elected and have no legitimacy given by the people I’m being generous by calling the EU a Democracy at all. The EU is a Democracy like Fetterman is a Democrat