[krapp]

That would be antithetical to democracy. The people must be allowed to introduce any legislation they want, as often as they want.

Otherwise it would be trivial for a government to intentionally fail to pass anything they disagree with, and thus act as a de facto dictatorship.

[Saline9515]

The current institution where the parliament is not able to choose which laws it votes is already not democratic. Such limitation would at least avoid the blatant gaming of the system.

[jagged-chisel]

Not to mention how would one even define "the same legislation"?

[dmitrygr]

When have "the people" been last consulted on this? Do you really think Chat Control has high public support? Given how most "democracies" work in our world today (which is to say with no consultation of the people), i think limiting their ability to do further harm might be worth it.

[krapp]

This wouldn't limit the ability of governments to do harm, it would limit the ability of the people to mitigate that harm by giving them only one chance to ever do so.

I don't think "democracy is flawed therefore we need less of it" is a good idea.

[moffkalast]

The MEPs represent the people. They've just been consulted. They said no.

Looking at what each of my MEPs voted they seemed to pretty accurately represent their own party lines, the right and far right voted for, left and center left voted against. I'm shocked! Shocked! Well not that shocked.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Do you really think Chat Control has high public support?

Yes, I can absolutely see a majority in certain countries (e.g. Hungary) believing this is a fair compromise between security and privacy.

[Saline9515]

Hungary is small and an outlier in the EU.

[raron]

Based on EU's public consultation it is not even true (but the number of responses is very small)

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...