7 ms·

That's also problematic. Currently the same proposal is being discussed over and over again but if that wouldn't be possible it's easy introduce "similar" idea

That's also problematic. Currently the same proposal is being discussed over and over again but if that wouldn't be possible it's easy introduce "similar" ideas. Ultimately law makers need to be able to pass new laws, even controversial ones, or the power to so slowly shifts to someone else (e.g. the executive in the USA) Not having a majority is the only way to stop the process and if the population is in favor, doesn't care or can't be bothered any law will pass.

mariusor 1y ago
I disagree on this one. In the same way you can't be prosecuted twice for the same crime in the US system under the "double jeopardy" clause, there should be an equivalent system where the same law can't be pushed over and over until it passes.
- LtWorf 1y ago
  It would be nice, but they change it a little bit so it's technically a different law.
- digitalPhonix 1y ago
  In many countries, it took multiple attempts to get gay marriage legalised. Having a double jeopardy type block for repeated attempts at passing laws would prevent social changes being captured in law. Also it would be easy to weaponised by proposing something that doesn’t have enough support now so that it can never be passed in the future.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    You're fighting a strawman there I think. He said nothing about it then never being possible to propose a law. A reasonable cool-down period to ensure politicians can't simply exploit the fatigue of the public would be reasonable - perhaps 10 or 12 years.
    - mschild 1y ago
      He did make a reference to the double jeopardy law in the US though which, if I'm not mistaken, explicitly prohibits exactly that type of behaviour.
    - digitalPhonix 1y ago
      That's not double jeopardy then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy The clause in the US constitution specifically has no time limits and it looks like it's the same for all the countries listed on wiki.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >He said nothing about it then never being possible to propose a law. A reasonable cool-down period to ensure politicians can't simply exploit the fatigue of the public would be reasonable - perhaps 10 or 12 years. So if gay marriage or weed legalization was defeated in 2015 you shouldn't be able to have a go at it until 2025? Or if YIMBY zoning reforms or AI regulation were defeated in 2025 you shouldn't be able try again until 2035?
      - pessimizer 1y ago
        Yes, even for things you support.
        labcomputer 1y ago
        That sounds like a terrible idea. Suppose a malicious actor wants to prevent something you support. They can simply bring a bill with a poison pill. To use the prior example: They could create a criminal reform act which makes weed legal, but also (by total coincidence) makes child rape legal. Nobody will vote for the pedophiles, so now they have successfully prevented weed legalization for at least 10 years, and they can use a different poison pill next time. Before you say "well, bring it back without the child rape part", see my other comment in this thread about deciding whether two bills are the same.
        1y ago
  - petre 1y ago
    That's brilliant. Chat control discussions should totally get derrailed to gay marriage and weed legalization.
    - digitalPhonix 1y ago
      Heh? Are examples not used in your culture?
- pessimizer 1y ago
  And there is in most parliamentary law, but usually restricted to sessions. Additionally, there's usually a proscription against passing negative laws (i.e. "we will not do X"), meaning that when something passes it becomes law and needs a supermajority to repeal, but when it fails, all it needs is a majority to be passed (in the next session.) The problem is that parliamentary law and democratic processes have ossified for the last 175 years, while "positive" bills have been passed to push more power to the executive, but can't be removed without supermajorities (that are now impossible because the executive has more power over elections and the schedule.) The last person to think seriously about parliamentary law was Thomas Jefferson, and he was really just encoding, organizing into a coherent system, and debugging Commons practice. If you think that the US has pushed too much power into the Executive, you should look at recent history (since the 80s-90s) in Britain. The opposition has no power at all, and even backbenchers in government have no power at all. They've been reduced to hoping that the right marble gets pulled from a bowl that allows them to hopefully read a bill out loud that might get on tv that might get an article written about it that goes viral, that might put pressure on the government to do something about it. The EU doesn't even have that level of democracy.
  - pqtyw 1y ago
    Interesting seeing people downvoting this. I mean this is literally what happened after Brexit: > you should look at recent history (since the 80s-90s) in Britain .. and even backbenchers in government have no power at all All pro EU Conservatives were forced to either get in line or commit political suicide since local party constituencies aren't allowed to pick their representatives. US at least has primaries...
- labcomputer 1y ago
  Double jeopardy in the US means being prosecuted for the exact same crime more than once. It does not, however, prevent being prosecuted for similar or related crimes. For instance, when local white juries would acquit white defendants in for lynching black people in the South, the federal government could (and did) try them again for the crime of violating the victim's civil rights. Same set of facts, but different crime. Not double jeopardy because they were being prosecuted for a different crime. That doesn't work for legislation, because defining when a law is "the same" is basically impossible. If I change one word, is it the same? What if I "ship of Theseus" the law? At what point is it a different law? Many legislatures ban members from repeatedly bring the same bill in the same session, which does require a similar determination. But that's a much weaker prohibition (even if the determination was wrong, you can always bring the law for a vote next year), and it is a necessary limitation to allow the legislature to get other work done without having members clog the process by bringing the same bill for a vote over and over again.
- Yeul 1y ago
  There are a bunch of people in my country who have been pushing against abortion rights for 50 years. So far they have never even come close. Now I suppose theoretically one day all the other 100 members of parliament accidentally push the wrong button but it seems farfetched.
somenameforme 1y ago
The whole point of governance in a democracy is consent of the governed. When lawmakers start actively going against the interests of society at large, then they've entered into the realm of authoritarianism with an occasional election - which is exactly what we accuse the 'bad guys' of doing.
- gruez 1y ago
  >When lawmakers start actively going against the interests of society at large[...] But how does banning subsequent attempts at passing bills prevent this? Moreover what's preventing this mechanism from being abused to block legislation that society actually want?
  - the_duke 1y ago
    The tactic here is sneaking legislation through the system by bringing it up again and again, hoping for the public to eventually lose interest, or to catch a time with a lot of other drama going on so they can avoid the public attention/backlash. I do think there are procedural ways to support this, like: proposed bills that are very similar to previous rejected ones need a preemptive vote with 60%+ support to be considered - if brought again with a certain time frame. I do see your point though, there can be unforeseen consequences.
    - Yeul 1y ago
      Good thing we have paid professionals whose job it is to vote on these things.
      - gruez 1y ago
        But the whole premise is that those paid professionals have gone rogue?
        idle_zealot 1y ago
        There's really no fixing that kind of failure state with a bandage solution. The whole idea of a representative democracy is premised on citizens being able to elect representatives who represent their interests. If that's not holding then that's the part that needs to be fixed.
adastra22 1y ago
It is not at all obvious to me that a government, acting from the authority of a public mandate, has to be able to pass controversial laws—which by definition lack that same consent.
KoolKat23 1y ago
I guess the main thing should be, there should be a lot more transparency with this whole thing. We should know who is behind it and vote them out. This whole Commission Grouping thing is smoke and mirrors, there are representatives of our governments facilitating this, we should know who they are, they should not be able to just stay anonymous. It should all be public when a vote is taken. It's ripe for abuse such as corruption, they've been forced them to open up a bit but it's clearly not enough. Usually it's the representatives themselves that propose laws (the ones we directly vote for). The commission could be viewed as a sort of potential trojan horse, in that it can make these proposals and yet it's inner workings are not fully transparent. With it's usual "government" work secrecy can be a good thing (trade negotiations etc.), when it comes to it drafting laws that should be transparent. Perhaps they should even look at splitting these things out but that also has a host of issues.
- account42 1y ago
  I disagree that trade negotiations should be done in secrecy - that's one of the most abused backdoor for antidemocratic laws.
  - KoolKat23 1y ago
    Fair enough, you're probably right, but it's perhaps one of the only plausible use cases. Otherwise it should not exist in in this sphere.

mariusor 1y ago

I disagree on this one. In the same way you can't be prosecuted twice for the same crime in the US system under the "double jeopardy" clause, there should be an equivalent system where the same law can't be pushed over and over until it passes.

LtWorf 1y ago
It would be nice, but they change it a little bit so it's technically a different law.
digitalPhonix 1y ago
In many countries, it took multiple attempts to get gay marriage legalised. Having a double jeopardy type block for repeated attempts at passing laws would prevent social changes being captured in law. Also it would be easy to weaponised by proposing something that doesn’t have enough support now so that it can never be passed in the future.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  You're fighting a strawman there I think. He said nothing about it then never being possible to propose a law. A reasonable cool-down period to ensure politicians can't simply exploit the fatigue of the public would be reasonable - perhaps 10 or 12 years.
  - mschild 1y ago
    He did make a reference to the double jeopardy law in the US though which, if I'm not mistaken, explicitly prohibits exactly that type of behaviour.
  - digitalPhonix 1y ago
    That's not double jeopardy then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy The clause in the US constitution specifically has no time limits and it looks like it's the same for all the countries listed on wiki.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >He said nothing about it then never being possible to propose a law. A reasonable cool-down period to ensure politicians can't simply exploit the fatigue of the public would be reasonable - perhaps 10 or 12 years. So if gay marriage or weed legalization was defeated in 2015 you shouldn't be able to have a go at it until 2025? Or if YIMBY zoning reforms or AI regulation were defeated in 2025 you shouldn't be able try again until 2035?
    - pessimizer 1y ago
      Yes, even for things you support.
      - labcomputer 1y ago
        That sounds like a terrible idea. Suppose a malicious actor wants to prevent something you support. They can simply bring a bill with a poison pill. To use the prior example: They could create a criminal reform act which makes weed legal, but also (by total coincidence) makes child rape legal. Nobody will vote for the pedophiles, so now they have successfully prevented weed legalization for at least 10 years, and they can use a different poison pill next time. Before you say "well, bring it back without the child rape part", see my other comment in this thread about deciding whether two bills are the same.
        1y ago
- petre 1y ago
  That's brilliant. Chat control discussions should totally get derrailed to gay marriage and weed legalization.
  - digitalPhonix 1y ago
    Heh? Are examples not used in your culture?
pessimizer 1y ago
And there is in most parliamentary law, but usually restricted to sessions. Additionally, there's usually a proscription against passing negative laws (i.e. "we will not do X"), meaning that when something passes it becomes law and needs a supermajority to repeal, but when it fails, all it needs is a majority to be passed (in the next session.) The problem is that parliamentary law and democratic processes have ossified for the last 175 years, while "positive" bills have been passed to push more power to the executive, but can't be removed without supermajorities (that are now impossible because the executive has more power over elections and the schedule.) The last person to think seriously about parliamentary law was Thomas Jefferson, and he was really just encoding, organizing into a coherent system, and debugging Commons practice. If you think that the US has pushed too much power into the Executive, you should look at recent history (since the 80s-90s) in Britain. The opposition has no power at all, and even backbenchers in government have no power at all. They've been reduced to hoping that the right marble gets pulled from a bowl that allows them to hopefully read a bill out loud that might get on tv that might get an article written about it that goes viral, that might put pressure on the government to do something about it. The EU doesn't even have that level of democracy.
- pqtyw 1y ago
  Interesting seeing people downvoting this. I mean this is literally what happened after Brexit: > you should look at recent history (since the 80s-90s) in Britain .. and even backbenchers in government have no power at all All pro EU Conservatives were forced to either get in line or commit political suicide since local party constituencies aren't allowed to pick their representatives. US at least has primaries...
labcomputer 1y ago
Double jeopardy in the US means being prosecuted for the exact same crime more than once. It does not, however, prevent being prosecuted for similar or related crimes. For instance, when local white juries would acquit white defendants in for lynching black people in the South, the federal government could (and did) try them again for the crime of violating the victim's civil rights. Same set of facts, but different crime. Not double jeopardy because they were being prosecuted for a different crime. That doesn't work for legislation, because defining when a law is "the same" is basically impossible. If I change one word, is it the same? What if I "ship of Theseus" the law? At what point is it a different law? Many legislatures ban members from repeatedly bring the same bill in the same session, which does require a similar determination. But that's a much weaker prohibition (even if the determination was wrong, you can always bring the law for a vote next year), and it is a necessary limitation to allow the legislature to get other work done without having members clog the process by bringing the same bill for a vote over and over again.
Yeul 1y ago
There are a bunch of people in my country who have been pushing against abortion rights for 50 years. So far they have never even come close. Now I suppose theoretically one day all the other 100 members of parliament accidentally push the wrong button but it seems farfetched.

somenameforme 1y ago

The whole point of governance in a democracy is consent of the governed. When lawmakers start actively going against the interests of society at large, then they've entered into the realm of authoritarianism with an occasional election - which is exactly what we accuse the 'bad guys' of doing.

gruez 1y ago
>When lawmakers start actively going against the interests of society at large[...] But how does banning subsequent attempts at passing bills prevent this? Moreover what's preventing this mechanism from being abused to block legislation that society actually want?
- the_duke 1y ago
  The tactic here is sneaking legislation through the system by bringing it up again and again, hoping for the public to eventually lose interest, or to catch a time with a lot of other drama going on so they can avoid the public attention/backlash. I do think there are procedural ways to support this, like: proposed bills that are very similar to previous rejected ones need a preemptive vote with 60%+ support to be considered - if brought again with a certain time frame. I do see your point though, there can be unforeseen consequences.
  - Yeul 1y ago
    Good thing we have paid professionals whose job it is to vote on these things.
    - gruez 1y ago
      But the whole premise is that those paid professionals have gone rogue?
      - idle_zealot 1y ago
        There's really no fixing that kind of failure state with a bandage solution. The whole idea of a representative democracy is premised on citizens being able to elect representatives who represent their interests. If that's not holding then that's the part that needs to be fixed.

adastra22 1y ago

It is not at all obvious to me that a government, acting from the authority of a public mandate, has to be able to pass controversial laws—which by definition lack that same consent.

KoolKat23 1y ago

I guess the main thing should be, there should be a lot more transparency with this whole thing. We should know who is behind it and vote them out. This whole Commission Grouping thing is smoke and mirrors, there are representatives of our governments facilitating this, we should know who they are, they should not be able to just stay anonymous. It should all be public when a vote is taken. It's ripe for abuse such as corruption, they've been forced them to open up a bit but it's clearly not enough. Usually it's the representatives themselves that propose laws (the ones we directly vote for). The commission could be viewed as a sort of potential trojan horse, in that it can make these proposals and yet it's inner workings are not fully transparent. With it's usual "government" work secrecy can be a good thing (trade negotiations etc.), when it comes to it drafting laws that should be transparent. Perhaps they should even look at splitting these things out but that also has a host of issues.

account42 1y ago
I disagree that trade negotiations should be done in secrecy - that's one of the most abused backdoor for antidemocratic laws.
- KoolKat23 1y ago
  Fair enough, you're probably right, but it's perhaps one of the only plausible use cases. Otherwise it should not exist in in this sphere.