It’s a double-edge sword though: if something you dislike gets votes, it’s never going away.
Of course they are and of course there is. The "EU passed a temporary derogation" to the ePrivacy Directive in 2021 "called Chat Control 1.0 by critics" [1]. That is now dead [2].
> if something you dislike gets votes, it’s never going away
Weird to be saying precedent is infintely binding in 2026 of all years.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_Control#Legislative_proce...
Without going into full detail on the procedure I'm imagining, such an outcome would bar consideration of equivalent legislation for several years and require a supermajority at several stages of the legislative process to override.
Basically, it can oppose new legislations but can't retract old laws.
It can't be. At least not in a legislature. Defining what is the same question is itself a political question. And past legislatures being able to bind future ones is just a futurecasting veto. A single crap election could poison the pool on a raft of issues for generations.
The proper way to do this is through constitutional amendments. The fact that these are too difficult to do, currently, seems to be the bug.
Anyone who’s ever been unable to dismiss a nag and forced to defer via "Ask me later" knows the feeling of powerlessness and disenfranchisement deliberately planted by those making UX decisions. .. or the EU constitutional framework.
I'm not saying you unalive your opposition, but you do need to make them suffer consequences if they push the boundaries to get what they want.
After all, Hitler did come to power democratically. He made it very clear what he wanted to do, and the Weimar government didn't stop him, thinking that they could just have voters see through his act. How'd that turn out?
Where people like to apply that phrase is when handling domestic affairs in a blatantly hypocritical manner. Such as banning certain speech, publications, or political activities while still claiming to honor the tenants of liberalism. In that context it's nothing more than a fig leaf to cover for one's own lack of integrity.
Pass laws that actively enhance privacy, that make it technically (e.g., require E2EE) and legally harder to surveil citizens, that require data minimization, that impose retention limits, that require higher standards for accessing surveillance content (e.g., warrants); pass amendments to constitutions, etc. How do you think current privacy protections happened in the first place?
Going on offense not only improves privacy, it forces the other side to use their resources playing defense and trying to keep up.
The 'one battle after another' defensive perspective is for people who have half-quit (I'm not talking about the parent here, but more generally). It fits the culture of despair that permeates every political grouping but the far right - they have plenty of initiative and creativity, and certainly don't hold back and play defense. You can do that too.
Maybe a more familiar analogy: It also fits the behavior of exhausted status quo market participants, companies that have lost their drive and innovation and are hanging onto their old ways instead of aggressively moving forward.
One thousand percent.
In a democracy, we don't kill our opposition. If they hold views we don't like, e.g. that security trumps privacy, they're going to litigate them. Probably their whole lives. That means they'll keep bringing up the same ideas. And you'll have to keep defeating them. But there are two corollaries.
One: Passing legislation takes as much work as repealing it; but unpassed legislation has no force of law. Being on the side that's keeping legislation from being passed is the stronger position. You have the status quo on your side. (The only stronger hand is the side fighting to keep legislation from being repealed. Then you have both the status quo and force of law on your side.)
Two: Legislative wants are unlimited. Once a group has invested into political machinery and organisation, they're not going to go home after passing their law. Thus, repeatedly failing to pass a law represents a successful bulwark. It's a resource sink for the defense, yes. But the defense gets to hold onto the status quo. The offense is sinking resources into the same fight, except with nothing to show for it. (Both sides' machines get honed.)
Each generation tends to have a set of issues they continuously battle. The status quo that persists or emerges in their wake forms a bedrock the next generations take for granted. This is the work of a democracy. Constantly working to convince your fellow citizens that your position deserves priority. Because the alternative is the people in power killing those who disagree with them.