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)
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?!
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)
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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.
I vote for “expands rights? Can repeat. Reduces rights? Has to wait”.