Reminds me of the ongoing fight over crypto-legislation.

"They only have to win once, you have to be vigilant and win every single time"

I also suspect that the current patent mess is a result of failing to win the continual defensive battle.

I'd be interested to hear from any law or political theorists regarding this seemingly deep flaw in the system. What could be done to mitigate it? How do we stop the same bad laws being proposed in slightly different forms again and again when vested interests combine with a poorly informed legislature?

>They only have to win once, you have to be vigilant and win every single time

The law is not a blockchain ledger. If bad law gets in, it can also get removed later.

It can be but it's an uphill battle the entire way and opponents try to shame crypto supporters with the Four Horsemen of the Crypto Apocalypse: Terrorists, Child Pornographers, Tax Evaders and Those Who Have Something To Hide.

Any objection to government surveillance is met with "Well you must be a member of or support the activities of" one or more members of the aforementioned groups. It's better to never let a bad law in than remove it later because people are irrational and bring these emotional arguments into play.

That takes a long time. In USA we've been trying to end drug prohibition for decades.

That's because there's a big amount of people, myself included, who feel like drug prohibition is good, all things considered. Not because "editing" the law is hard. (I am not American).

That doesn't make the situation different. All of these bad laws have supporters. (Largely because charlatans in government, law enforcement, and media constantly exaggerate dangers, but that's beside the point.)

By "bad law" I meant laws with absolutely no public support, not laws which are "objectively bad" (such thing made doesn't make sense)

There's plenty of public support for even the most dystopian laws.

That's not so easy for EU laws. The only body that can propose new EU laws is the European Commission, which ordinary voters have essentially no influence over. (Some of the non-EU Europe-wide bodies are even worse.)

But how can groups debate if a law is good or bad, isn't proposing such a law the way the debate is started? Maybe some bad laws have good intentions but some poor wording can have bad consequences.

Also why do we think constitutions are perfect, don't countries have to update them periodically to fix them?

Then let courts take stated intent of lawmakers into account and throw out cases where the application of the law is different from the stated intent.

I am not an expert, but I see a problem with this idea too, the lawmaker will need to also write what the intention is, then you can find loopholes in the text of what the intention is. or the intention could be very general so ambiguous to interpret. In some countries there is a way for the people to contest laws as unconstitutional and have judges not politicians decide.

the issue is the usual: eu is so far removed from constituents it's pointless to try and save it.