arlort

They're really not though

The referendum is obviously legally binding, the laws they were about were abrogated as the vote requested and it's been 15 years since the last one.

Since then politics shifted, technology changed, the geopolitical situation changed, 10 million people died, 9 million people became adults that weren't before

If people are still against nuclear the same mechanism to call for a referendum to reject this law still exists and there's elections next year anyway.

I'll preface it with the only part of the US argument against the ICC that is somewhat principled and reasonable: there is some concern that it'd be used for political prosecution of US service members or decision makers outside of constitutional guarantees like a jury trial

I don't think it actually would happen if it joined but since it's the US I can also imagine someone being pushed to (or doing it for some personal fame) to bend the procedural rules to at least launch an investigation that wouldn't generally be launched if the facts were the same in another western country.

That being said, their accusations towards the ICC as it has operated so far (as opposed to why they don't join) are mostly pretextual and right now they're mostly motivated by their alliance with Israel which is being investigated over Gaza

It's definitely been a meme in the rust ecosystem

(but yes, the language team and ecosystem were always making a point of incremental addition rather than full rewrite)

In addition to what others added below you might be interested in this postmortem https://leodemoura.github.io/blog/2026-8-24-postmortem-for-t...

Big cities are not big because of tourism.

Unless you count the historical city center of Venice as a big city I doubt you'd get many big cities getting even close to those numbers

I can't easily/quickly find some numbers but if we want to accept, with a grain of salt, Gemini research on this even in Venice (I think it counts Mestre as well) it's ~15% and that's the highest it found.

steadily heading towards the final goal of computers being composed of pluggable crystals as stargate intended

That's only partially true

In this case my understanding is that they determined vpn-s as a tool to fall outside the scope of the law and so they struck down an attempt to enforce the law

If the law got changed so that vpn-s are now within the scope of the new law then you'd expect them to not apply the same reasoning anymore in examining a similar case

Judicial review would come into play if the challenge was about the updated law being inconsistent with some more important law such as the treaties or charter

There's some level of difference to be fair

Hacking is a concern in both but the bigger issue is potential for abuse of power.

In the case of border checks the target is by necessity someone that isn't a citizen. This means that:

1. We generally afford them less safeguards than citizens so it creates less precedent (both legal and in terms of overton window)

2. The potential for abuse is ultimately less because a traveler on a short term visa is unlikely to still be in the country / unable to leave if a hostile government comes to power and intends to abuse the data

Also fingerprints and a picture are significantly less invasive than pervasive video surveillance in public spaces

> hello beuracrates

Just in case you missed that class, taxes are determined by legislators

Also I believe there just isn't a constitutional mechanism in the UK for parliament to bind itself in such a way

I don't think there's an injunction mechanism like that at the EU level

And even if there were I doubt the legal basis in EU law exists for such an injunction

> the right framing is strategic autonomy from an unreliable partner

Yes but that's an uncomfortable framing for online-americans to use when they want some gotcha argument

And not a useful one for US administrations in the last 30 years (trump was far from the first one) to make because the (mostly) unstated assumption was that the vast majority of increased spending would go to american manufacturers to prop up american jobs

Would it be still a good idea if instead of being created / owned by google as an organization it was originally made by someone that didn't make billions by handling trillions of http requests over decades and you had to keep all of the bad initial api design choices going forward?

I can think of a few reasons why a company built on profiling (and advertising to) user interests might be interested in the private conversations of their users

> pieces of legislation were enacted and around 2,000 resolutions

I'm wondering if this includes regulatory agencies which in the US operate under the executive

I would guess it's included but the wording (act, resolution) is very "legislative" coded

> this is adopted or not

It's not. However from the speech it sounds like the commission is ready to put forward their proposal soon-ish

After they do so the actual legislative process is going to start where the draft has to go through Parliament and the Council to become law

The legislative process is going to take time which is where the 2027 date in eu-inc.org comes from

I don't know if there will be legal or political issues around this that would delay adoption though

That's very much not the difference between common and civil law

If the law is constitutional it can't be thrown out by a judge in common law and if it's not it can be declared so in civil law

The difference between the two is more about what happens in the absence of a law

> has that made any impact on the war in Ukraine

The objective of the ICC is not to stop wars

The objective of the ICC is to provide a framework to enable prosecuting and punishing the people ordering particularly egregious acts in a way that is more consistent with liberal rule of law principles than post-hoc tribunals like after WW2 and that is more accessible to fragile / new countries due to having the legal infrastructure set up and at least partially legitimized by it being an international body

The fact that Putin (for example) might at some point get extradited / captured, prosecuted and jailed for whatever crimes he gets found guilty of is a moral good in and of itself

If this being done at the ICC rather than in an Ukrainian or Russian (in an hypothetical regime after Putin's) helps others accept the verdict as more based on fact than politics then that's why the ICC exists as an entity

If this makes someone down the line think twice about ordering war crimes then that's an added benefit but it's not the point

There's no such flaw in most cases brought to the ICC

The ICC is an international court but it administers trials (mostly) local to the members' jurisdiction so this point is moot. A warrant from the ICC doesn't ask the member states to go to war and hunt the target, it asks them to arrest them if the target is within their jurisdiction

The fact that the ICC warrant was unlikely to lead to Hamas' leaders arrest in the short term is not particularly meaningful

The "mostly" qualifier is because IIRC there are some provisions for truly extraterritorial prosecutions in the Rome treaty but I don't know that they've ever been actually used

> the power to initiate legislation are completely immune to voter displeasure

Completely immune is overstating it, and the power to initiate legislation is not that meaningful given that the EC initiates what the council tells it to initiate and can't actually turn it into law without parliament and council

They're not complicated for anyone with above room temperature IQ. And they're almost identical to how it works in the member countries anyway

And in a democracy if you don't know how your own laws are made the fault is always yours as a voter

Because it doesn't, people are just embarrassingly ignorant of how the EU legislative process works so when a vote to give first approval to a text is cancelled before it takes place journalists and reddit all over pull out the mission accomplished banners and when a negotiating position is approved everyone has a surprised pikachu face

The "proposal" was made something like 3 years ago, the killing never happened and the passing, if it passes, will happen in at least one year from now because this will definitely take a long time to get through parliament and even longer to get through the trilogue.

The process is many things but quick it is not

The council of the EU operates on a rotating chair model (which gets called Presidency, sometimes Presidency of the EU)

It's currently held by Denmark so it's the Danish delegation that's mostly doing the brokering etc for this semester

Yes, but have you considered US politicians don't like the ICC?

What's a bit of truth in the face of that

The ICC in this case is investigating crimes committed in a party to the Rome treaty, that's not extraterritorial jurisdiction

Even ignoring that one of these cases involves death and destruction and the other doesn't

No you don't, that's not how laws work, if you want society to look the way you want you need to actively work for it, you can't delegate that process to a law. It's not how participation in a free society works

They're realistically not preparing for a zombie apocalypse

If power goes out really bad, there's some kind of major weather event in some part of the country etc 3 days is a reasonable time frame for emergency measures to be put in place

> would be slightly more complex than just introducing the backdor

Not really, both things need to be done by a law. So it's the same signal and complexity as just rejecting the law when it's proposed

And the second option at least does away with the pretension of permanence people like to use as an excuse to wash their hands of interest in politics

The fact you think that qualifies as a "clear" definition is fascinating.

This feels like just a reflexive regurgitation of the distinction between positive and negative rights that has no relevance to the discussion at all