While direct-democracy and referenda are nice ideas in theory, they're in practice usually rendered meaningless and/or manipulative, and I've seen them used to manipulate and undermine the entire electoral process. So if this approach catches on, one might hope it could discourage the manipulation of referenda....
But if the competing referenda cancel each other out, that shouldn't necessarily signal a go-ahead for the reforms. Should it?
I think DoDo means that since Fidesz is in opposition if their (opportunistic) referenda drive fails, the government goes ahead with the reforms. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Now in Hungary, maybe the linguists' action will force people to look at these issues more closely and decide what they really want, and vote with sense (e.g. 6 yes 3 No, or 6 No 3 Yes). But it could just as well lead to yet another referendum failing on low participation. (Since 1989, there have been exactly three successful referendums, one of which forced regime change, the other two approved NATO resp. EU membership. Of hundreds of more initiatives, less than half a dozen got on the ballot paper, and none made it.)
As for the go-ahead for reforms: if a referendum result both says that they should stop and that they can go ahead, they can just reference the latter as approval, what should stop them? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
