It's not about veto power, it's about consulting technical experts to evaluate whether the legal proposal even makes sense. The EU Cyber Resilience Act is a good example: experts stepped in and made sure that the term "supplier" was accurately defined so some random Joe Shmoe could not be held liable for bugs in some piece of code he threw over the wall on GitHub. The law still got passed, but after being refined.
What if the technical experts tell the legislators something they don’t want to hear? Do you think the legislators will just go along with a bunch of egghead nay-sayers? Their constituents/donors/special-interests are demanding action!
> it's about consulting technical experts to evaluate whether the legal proposal even makes sense
And that often comes down to people realising that they need to engage those experts. Instead many just assume "it makes sense to me, with the thinking I've done about it" means that it definitely actualy makes sense.
Also sometimes the very cynical view is true: people know technical experts will pick holes in something, so they find a way to rush it through quickly to not allow the chance for that. Sometimes they are quite honest about this with arguments based in "not letting perfect be the enemy of good". Once a rule is in place it then becomes someone else's problem to undo it, or at least fix the technical problems in-place. Meanwhile those that got it through get credit from those who agree with the emotive argument, and also don't care about the technical details & accidental implications, credit that they can try use to further the cause or their career.
What makes you think an "expert" was not consulted on this? Experts can be wrong too, regardless of credentials. That's why AI should be used to review and critique all new laws going forward, in order to prevent such mistakes from being made law. Hard /s, btw.
