That's certainly an idea but consider it from the website owner's point of view. They're already making their website less competitive (globally) with annoying pop-over nonsense. Some websites actually don't work until you've explicitly agreed to have cookies (a poor interpretation of the law, IMO).
What do you think a user is going to do if they have to sit through a five minute, hell, even a 30 second political complaint before they can even use the site? Well, if that site, like many sites, has a billion competitors - the user can go back and click the next site on the Google listings. That's what I do when a site isn't doing what I explicitly asked for, or doesn't load fast enough.
No, most websites in the EU are doing as little as possible to draw clients attention away from the product; inferring "implied consent" with a cookies link somewhere on the page is a common design metaphor, maybe a position:fixed link-image in a corner. Otherwise it's business as usual, thankyouverymuch.
What surprises me most about this story is that there are actually complaints in the first place for the ICO to investigate. Why don't people have better things to do with their time?