Those guys only ever have a "maybe later" button.

That's pretty much how it works; there's generally no way, in a modern parliamentary democracy to say "no, and also you can never discuss it again". You could put it in the constitution, but honestly there's a decent argument that parts of chat control would violate the EU's can't-believe-it's-not-a-constitution (the Lisbon Treaty is essentially a constitution, but is not referred to as such because it annoys nationalists) in any case and ultimately be struck down by the ECJ, like the Data Retention Directive was.

▲

account42 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Constituional cours are a last defense against bad laws though and should not be the first one - they are not designed to be fast enough to prevent a lot of damage being done before they strike something down.

	▲	wongarsu 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The first defense is that the Council of the EU (formed by government ministers of the member states) and the European Parliament (elected directly by EU citizens) have to agree on the legislation. And while the council is staffed by career politicians, the parliament is a more diverse group that's generally a bit closer to the average person From the point of view of the individual, the parliament is our first defense. And this is an example of it working
	▲	ApolloFortyNine 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		If something in 'Chat Control' is so fundamental that it should lead to the law not even being brought up for discussion (privacy), then that 'right' should be more clearly defined in the constitution, or constitution like structure. It's when laws can exist, but simply have bad implementations, where you obviously can't jump to an amendment process.
	▲	rsynnott 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I mean, they're _not_ the first defence. This is a story about the parliament rejecting a bad law.

▲

cucumber3732842 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That constitution sure did stop Giuliani from having the cops shake down all those black guys.

At the end of the day you still need people to actually believe it, for whatever "it" is.

▲

rsynnott an hour ago | parent [-]

Yeah, this is more or less what I'm saying. Large parts of 'Chat Control' likely _are_ unconstitutional, but that doesn't necessarily stop it being brought (it just makes it likely that the courts will kill parts of it if it ever passes).

	▲	cucumber3732842 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> (it just makes it likely that the courts will kill parts of it if it ever passes). Years after harm was done and lives were ruined no less.