This nonetheless leaves the potential issue of successive presentations of the same request, which would create undue burdens for the system and, in time, could undermine its reputation as a serious instrument for democratic expression. Therefore consideration should be given to whether some disincentives or time limits should be put in place to constrain the ability to represent an initiative (for instance a failed citizens' initiative could not be represented again before a certain time limit has elapsed). However, it should be borne in mind that although some initiatives may regard the same subject-matter and contain some similar elements, they might not be identical. Moreover, the operational and financial resources required to the launch of an EU-wide initiative are likely to limit repetition and duplication.
However, it should be borne in mind that although some initiatives may regard the same subject-matter and contain some similar elements, they might not be identical. Moreover, the operational and financial resources required to the launch of an EU-wide initiative are likely to limit repetition and duplication.
Good. But I am still not sure what kind of 'unserious' repetitive petitions they think of. It may be something that occured in practice in Switzerland or California, but I can't think of any examples now. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
This applies to the possibility of mandatory legal advice provided by the Commission free of charge, for instance. The need for the petition to be "seriously likely" to succeed motivated my suggestion that you need 100,000 signatures in order to qualify for institutional support (advice, signature collection and authentication infrastructure, etc). En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
