[nabla9]

> I am much for 3-strikes here.

You want something over democratic control.

Democratically elected representatives are sovereign decision makers. They can vote and decide whatever they want. Constitutions interpreted by high courts can strike laws down only afterwards.

Democracy should lead to stupid laws if people are ignorant, stupid and easily led.

If we had direct democracy, this bill would have passed decades ago.

[betaby]

> If we had direct democracy, this bill would have passed decades ago.

And repealed also decades ago.

[nabla9]

It seems likely that in direct democracy European constitution would have replaced decades ago and ECJ would be neutered.

[peoplefromibiza]

> If we had direct democracy, this bill would have passed decades ago.

this is an important point, rarely discussed.

Here on HN I noticed a strong adversion for EU and its politician, but I really doubt that here on HN many are aware of the opinions of the general population in EU.

Much worse laws would be in place if we had direct democracy, I am 100% confident that death penalty would be the first big come back, but also stricter immigration laws (intra-EU too) and a generalized increase in the length of penalties for petty crimes, just because people in EU are old and they believe a police state will make them safer.

edit: QED the comments show how people would make the EU a worse place. Lucky us they can't.

They simply took what's in their interest (for example immigration laws, like really EU was flooded by migrants, spoiler: it is not!) and discarded the things they don't think would happen, because people are like that: they do not think of unwanted consequences and when they happen (like the ban of intra-eu immigration, which would most likely happen, being entirely legal and very easy to stop, unlike the illegal immigration from outside the EU) it means that someone else (in this case I assume the progressists, that they would call communists) worked against it because they hate them and hate their people and traditions.

It's incredible how easy it is to prove that trusting the average Joe on long term planning of an entire sub continent leads to catastrophes.

EDIT 2: it's also incredible how disconnected people are on political matters, they have a split brain, that thing that Orwell named doublespeak.

The most extreme libertarians that scream about being deprived of their freedom to have encrypted chats where they exchange swastikas with their friends, are the most conservatives on all the social matters and are the same people that vote the same politicians that then propose the chat control for the sake of the children.

[nabla9]

Case in point

2009 Swiss minaret referendum. Amendment to article 72 of the Swiss Federal Constitution reads: "The building of minarets is prohibited."

It's completely nutty to put random token issue into the constitution. Its' just gigantic fuck you for Swiss citizens with ex-Yugoslavi or Turkish roots. It breaks all legal principles and does not work serve its intended purpose of "stopping creeping islamization". They even failed to define term "minaret". Minarets are not required in Islam and fundamentalist Wahabbi/Salafi sects don't even accept them.

All that said, I support 100% the right for the Swiss people to be idiot edgelords. That's what democracy is all about.

[account42]

> but also stricter immigration laws

Sounds good.

[fallingknife]

> stricter immigration laws

Good

> generalized increase in the length of penalties for petty crimes

Good. If you disagree spend some time in SF.

> death penalty

Debatable

[nabla9]

You are good citizen like me.

result I like after 5 seconds of thinking -> good

bad outcome -> I don't think people think that way. At least not good people or majority of people.

principles -> elitism.