[JumpCrisscross]

> to repeatedly undermine constitution

The EU doesn’t have a constitution [1], simply enabling treaties [2].

The solution would be in ratifying a constitution.

> am much for 3-strikes here

Careful. A party in power will seek to nullify issues by putting forward and then defeating sham bills.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Consti...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_European_Uni...

[SEMW]

What problem here would be solved by ratifying a constitution?

Like -- ISTM that the relevant property here is the ability of the courts to overturn ordinary legislation for incompatibility with basic human rights provisions. But the EU already has this. the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (which is pretty much a superset of the european convention on human rights) is incorporated into the Lisbon treaty, and all EU legislation must be compatible with it. EU courts have overturned legislation for incompatibility with the CFR, eg Digital Rights Ireland[0].

The collection of member state treaties is for ~all intents and purposes a constitution, just not in a single document, and without the word "constitution" at the top.

[0] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

[JumpCrisscross]

> What problem here would be solved by ratifying a constitution?

Admittedly, a narrow one: clearly delineating unconstitutional behaviour and allowing it to be called out.

> collection of member state treaties is for ~all intents and purposes a constitution, just not in a single document

That morass makes it difficult for the public to cleanly digest when something is blatantly unconstitutional. (Britain has a similar problem.)

[SEMW]

> That morass makes it difficult for the public to cleanly digest when something is blatantly unconstitutional

I'm not convinced that's a relevant issue here. For some parts of EU treaty law, sure, but here the context here is disapplying EU legislation that's incompatible with fundamental human rights. Those parts are all in one document in one treaty: the Charter of Fundamental Rights[0], which was incorporated into the Lisbon treaty.

(besides, whether in the EU, somewhere with a formal constitution like the US, or the UK, the vast majority of the work of figuring out whether something is in breach of treaty / constitutional provisions is always going to be analysing caselaw)

[0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

[AnthonyMouse]

> A party in power will seek to nullify issues by putting forward and then defeating sham bills.

Presumably the three strikes would be for the politicians, e.g. if you have voted in favor of three bills that courts have subsequently found unconstitutional, you're barred from holding office.

[JumpCrisscross]

> if you have voted in favor of three bills that courts have subsequently found unconstitutional, you're barred from holding office

Would you look at that, everyone who was passing court reform is now barred from office.

You’re looking for a cheat code to effort in government. It doesn’t exist. Power is ephemeral. The person in power is always more powerful than the person who just had it, almost by definition.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Would you look at that, everyone who was passing court reform is now barred from office.

But then the population sees this, still wants court reform (now more than ever) and votes in new politicians to take it up. The new politicians haven't yet voted on anything and so can't be barred this way and the first bill they take up is court reform.

> You’re looking for a cheat code to effort in government.

I'm looking for checks and balances. Something outside of the whims of populism should cause politicians who repeatedly attempt to violate fundamental rights to suffer consequences.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I'm looking for checks and balances

Try a cooling-off period. Switzerland does it for referendums. Absent a super-majority, a bill needs a certain amount of time between initial and final approval.

[account42]

We are looking for checks and balances for politicians acting against the interests of the populace. Without them a government is always one step away from tyranny.

[lucianbr]

The ultimate check is people voting for better politicians. Without this, no system of checks can do anything significant. No checks in the US will limit Trump and the republicans, if they get voted over and over again. No checks in France or Germany or Italy will limit the extreme right, if they keep getting more and more of parliament. Eventually they would be powerful enough to change the constitution, change judges and so on. No system of checks can stop Putin or Xi or the Taliban.

Checks are useful if people mostly vote right, but occasionally make mistakes. If you double down on the mistakes, you get the situation that it would be undemocratic for some rules made 100 years ago to stand in the way of what the majority of the population wants today.

Plus, who knows what are the "interests of the populace". Who can decide that? If the populace votes one way, you saying "they're voting against their interests so they should be prevented from getting what they want" is functionally equivalent to saying "what I want should be done and what others want should not, even if I am in a minority". I know it does not feel that way to you, but try to see it from the perspective of someone who disagrees with you.

In a democracy, the only possible arbiter of what should happen is the majority. Anything else is the tyranny you decry.

[thfuran]

>The solution would be in ratifying a constitution.

That certainly doesn't prevent politicians from voting for unconstitutional laws.

[JumpCrisscross]

> certainly doesn't prevent politicians from voting for unconstitutional laws

At that point you no longer have a legislative body, but an advisory council to whomever it is that decides what votes are and aren’t punishable. (See: Iran, China, the Roman Principate, early parliamentary monarchies.)

[mro_name]

difficult balancing act. Having a legislative body throwing fundamental rights out of the window isn't appealing either.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Having a legislative body throwing fundamental rights out of the window isn't appealing either

They’re not. They’re discussing it. Even if they pass it, it’s subject to court review.

[Aerroon]

Yes, it's subject to court review... Five years down the line. Meanwhile they will force member states to act according to it. If they refuse they will sue them!

This is exactly what happened with the Data Retention Directive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive

>According to the Data Retention Directive, EU member states had to store information on all citizens' telecommunications data (phone and internet connections) for a minimum of six months and at most twenty-four months, to be delivered on demand to police authorities.

First passed: March 15, 2006

Came into force: May 3rd, 2006

The law was introduced in Romania, but a year later the constitutional court struck it down. In 2011 the European Commission sued Romania for not implementing the law and fined them for it. This forced Romania to sign a new law in 2012, which was also declared unconstitutional in 2014.

>On 8 April 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the Directive invalid

And the kicker is that the UK has tried to implement a similar law domestically two more times.

[lucianbr]

It's only difficult because people keep voting for politicians willing to throw fundamental rights out the window. I don't think any solution exists in this circumstance. People want to vote for bad politicians but to get good results. Good luck designing a system that does that, and does not just discount what people vote for.

[mro_name]

but I see the problem https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-06-26/suprem...

[mro_name]

I mean e.g. the safe harbour scandal that EUGH nullified after a 10-year legal struggle. Was violating EU core values. That's as close to unconsitutional as one may get not having one. Then came privacy shield, another 10-year legal fight and groundhog day. You get the idea.