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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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