• kittykabal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    i think the last decade of developments in US politics have provided everyone with an example of where that goes, though. not passing the “sword” policy because you fear your opponents using it doesn’t actually matter; your opponents, when they come into power, may just immediately enact it themselves. and if they can’t, there’s a good chance they’ll first enact a policy that broadswords aren’t swords, technically, probably, maybe, totally, according to this one precedent from the year 1835, and then enact a broadsword policy.

    bad-faith actors, authoritarians, fascists, etc., are more than happy to watch everyone else pull their punches based on some assumption they’ll do the same. they won’t.

    that being said, i can’t imagine the veto rule ever accomplishing anything good on anyone’s side, really. it favors obstructionism by its very nature, which is inherently anti-democratic.

    • bedrooms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I get your point, but each EU member state has a democratic solution on its own (yes, with flaws), and EU ain’t a country in the first place.

      In other words, they didn’t assemble to start a new country. They were there to collaborate internationally as sovereign states.