4 ms·

I'm definitely with you on your first statement, but > The best you can do is require a total process re-start each time. That doesn't prevent reintroduction,

I'm definitely with you on your first statement, but > The best you can do is require a total process re-start each time. That doesn't prevent reintroduction, but it adds significant cost and delay. Democracy is not all about efficiency. In fact it is important that these costs are added, especially for passing new laws. As it is in IT Security, there is always DoS Potential if the defender has to do more work than the attacker. As such the one proposing a new law must be seen as the attacker and it is important that he must do a significant more amount of work than the defender. An example where this fails, also for the EU legislative, are the various Safe Harbor Agreements with the US and their corresponding Schrems judgements. They all passed more than easily and Schrems needed years to fight against their unjustice. As a result the EU had many years under an unsound law. I think there is much potential to improve the democratic institutions of the EU and not being able to withdraw a proposal (or maybe only in extraordinary circumstances) would be one of them.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Democracy is not all about efficiency In that context, I meant cost and delay as a benefit. > not being able to withdraw a proposal This empowers anyone who can introduce proposals with fillibustering the forum.
- rhetenor 2y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. Misread that it's something unwanted. In my opinion filibustering would only be a problem, if there are no speech limits. As far as I'm aware of the internal workings of the EU institutions there are tight schedules and every member has limited speech time and the vote is set on a fixed date. And as I stated, there should also be exceptions which allow for a withdrawal. It just shouldn't be as easy as: Let's withdraw until I got a stable majority. Stable and flexible legislative sure is an important thing in democracy, but there must also be some kind of disruptive process to correct and the MPs should only be bound to their own conscience at the end of the process. Could you maybe elaborate a bit further how this would enable filibustering?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Democracy is not all about efficiency In that context, I meant cost and delay as a benefit. > not being able to withdraw a proposal This empowers anyone who can introduce proposals with fillibustering the forum.

rhetenor 2y ago
Thanks for the clarification. Misread that it's something unwanted. In my opinion filibustering would only be a problem, if there are no speech limits. As far as I'm aware of the internal workings of the EU institutions there are tight schedules and every member has limited speech time and the vote is set on a fixed date. And as I stated, there should also be exceptions which allow for a withdrawal. It just shouldn't be as easy as: Let's withdraw until I got a stable majority. Stable and flexible legislative sure is an important thing in democracy, but there must also be some kind of disruptive process to correct and the MPs should only be bound to their own conscience at the end of the process. Could you maybe elaborate a bit further how this would enable filibustering?