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)

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?