If you reject cookies, the site has no way of knowing you have rejected cookies the next time you visit. You need a cookie in order to store the cookie decision
A rejected cookie preference could be stored client side in local storage and depending on that value you could decide whether to show the cookie prompt.
Directive 2002/58/EC applies to any "hidden information" stored on users' computers. It's irrelevant whether you use cookies or localStorage or IndexedDB. Regardless of what you use to store data on the user's computer, you have to "ensure that users are made aware of information being placed on the terminal equipment", and users must "have the opportunity to refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored on their terminal equipment."
However, the ICO has suggested that saying "I refuse to allow any cookies on my computer" could be taken as implied consent to allow a cookie stating such.
There's no exception for "functional cookies". There's an exception for cookies "strictly necessary" for an "explicitly requested" service. I don't see how remembering you don't want cookies is strictly necessary or explicitly requested. Unless you have a separate optional check for "remember my decision" I would argue that not asking every session would be a violation of the ePrivacy law.
It's good to remember that judges are not computers. They are not required to follow the law to the letter in weird edge cases, especially when that would be against the intent of the law. They are allowed to do that, but not required.
Many common practices are against some particularly pedantic interpretations of the law. Nobody cares, because following the law to the letter would not be in anyone's interests. If an obnoxious asshole decides to really push the issue, and they are not laughed out of court because the judge is an equally obnoxious asshole, the practice may be found technically illegal. There will likely be no consequences, because it was done in good faith with everyone's best interests in mind.
However, the ruling may force the government to change the letter of the law, wasting a lot of time and money that could have been spent for other purposes. All because of some particularly evil asshole.
Do you mean the most restrictive interpretation of the law you can imagine? Because you can't actually know what the letter of the law means in specific cases before a judge rules something.
You can of course try living your life like that, but you'll likely find that it becomes effectively impossible to do anything.
Browsers provide multiple ways to store data like that locally, you don't need cookies. And even if you did, you wouldn't need consent to store that preference.
A rejected cookie preference could be stored client side in local storage and depending on that value you could decide whether to show the cookie prompt.