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.

I wish there were a “No, And Stop Asking” law where you couldn’t propose a law again within X years after it fails to pass.

I know a million reasons why that’s probably impossible, starting with “what makes it the same law?”, but I can still wish we had one.

Not sure how true that is, but I heard people mention that the law would be unconstitutional in Denmark, where this iteration was born. If so, I think that should be a limitation as well.

Maybe on the condition that the law was struck down by courts. Otherwise it would block iterations on any controversial topics that need time to reach consensus.

Some others here asked how would we decide what is the same law. That’s pretty easy: same as with many other not so clear things, if some sues a judge/jury hears both sides and makes a decision.

I doubt that this can be actually done as intended because the wording of a bill can be changed enough to pretend it's not the same as the previous versions. I can't really think of a way to make this work, but indeed it would be a great addition to law passing.

Good idea. yeah at this point, law making every were just seems like brute force attack at this point. We need some kind of security assure to keep out these 'law making crackers'

It exists but the proposal must be voted on. These people will not put the proposal to vote if they know it will not pass. That's why they ask countries' positions up front.

Wouldn't that potentially be exploited by the opposition where they could push a similar bill but with unpopular additions?

Also an expiry date for every bill. All things should have a timeout.

We should fund another lobby that pull in the other direction.

Trying to prevent stupidity by regulations and rules is proving to be problematic: Because we have very successfully prevented stupid from destroying themselves, and let them thrive on the successes of others built (e.g. anti-vaxers are relatively safe thanks to everyone else vaccinating their children, or you can thrive on benefits in the UK which is great when you genuinely tried your best but fail, but terrible when it is motivating you to stop trying).

This fundemantally conflicts with a lesson startup scene learned very early: Fail fast, fail often. Our societies do not fail fast when they make mistakes, thanks to the incredible safety and stability intelligent and sensible people created.

This is preventing people from learning from their idiocies, which in turn allows them to reach to critical mass and forcing their idiocy on the whole society in the form of bullshit or hurtful laws and orders.

We should change this and let idiots fail fast before they become a danger to everyone.

As other comments on this post have mentioned, exponential backoff would still have some issues.

However, we could envision a rule where controversial bills have to be validated by a strict majority, or even a supermajority (75% minimum) of the voting population via referendum.

I feel like in 2025 it should be doable for a state to ask its citizens to vote online to show that they support a bill, and if a given bill lacks support amongst the citizen body of that state, it's probably not worth passing.

> There should be sorts of an exponential backoff mandated for the contents of bills.

I don't think that's workable:

* If it only works for exact bills, they'll just change a tiny bit and resubmit, and we're back to square one but with frustrating procedures/paperwork.

* If it works for approximate bills, then it will be abused by opponents that introduce fatally-flawed versions of your good bill in order to block you from ever getting it voted-on.

But that's exactly how the EU works. If you give the "wrong" answer they'll keep going until you give the "right" answer.

France and the Netherlands rejected the proposed EU constitution... nevermind, the same was in the later Lisbon treaty.

Ireland rejected the Nice and Lisbon treaties... nevermind they still passed when asked again after cosmetic changes and "information campaigns".

Poland voted for the wrong government... EU suspended funds until they voted for the right government at the next election.

It is the courts' job to block unconstitutional or otherwise illegal laws.

I believe someone said in a previous thread that a court in an EU member state had already found this mass surveillance on citizens who are not criminal suspects to be illegal under either their constitution or the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but I can't find it anymore. I am wondering why that is not sufficient to permanently block this.

Edit: This is not to say that you shouldn't resist the laws at every other level, too, because you definitely should.