I understand the point that the INUCA is for passing legislation, but we should still maintain the power check provided by referenda; this would allow laws that were poorly met by the people to be repealed if necessary without having to wait a few more months for the next INUCA. And, furthermore, if a party controls the INUCA, it essentially does control the government; if the SC vetoes their laws, they can override the veto. The delegate also doesn't do much in passing any sort of law, so it would be irrelevant if they held the delegacy at that point. About your past experiences, I can obviously only speak for myself, but the referenda we managed in the IWU went smoothly and easily; we never had trouble with them. Lastly, even if the people have a right to make proposals to repeal things, the law would have to be pretty bad for them to get the motivation to write a full proposal against it. It also serves as motivation to the INUCA to pass laws for the benefit of the people.
But, as this is extremely important to decide, we'll hold another referendum on this.
But, as this is extremely important to decide, we'll hold another referendum on this.