[inglor_cz]

OK, let me formulate this better. Let us say that you have a serious conflict between two such papers.

One of them is the nation's constitution, the other is a decision from Brussels, and people from politicians down to the regular cop will have to choose their allegiance, A or B.

I claim that in such situation, in most EU nations, their constitutions will win. They are held in higher emotional regard, as they have behind them a long legacy of struggle and memory of people whose lives were martyred in a fight for national freedom.

Which is actually why Brussels shouldn't push some things too hard.

[saubeidl]

Speaking of a nation's constitution, how do you feel about Article 23 of the German Grundgesetz?

> (1) With a view to establishing a united Europe, the Federal Republic of Germany shall participate in the development of the European Union that is committed to democratic, social and federal principles, to the rule of law and to the principle of subsidiarity and that guarantees a level of protection of basic rights essentially comparable to that afforded by this Basic Law. To this end the Federation may transfer sovereign powers by a law with the consent of the Bundesrat. The establishment of the European Union, as well as changes in its treaty foundations and comparable regulations that amend or supplement this Basic Law or make such amendments or supplements possible, shall be subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 79.

I would hope the people, politicians and cops of Germany follow their constitution.

[surgical_fire]

> One of them is the nation's constitution, the other is a decision from Brussels, and people from politicians down to the regular cop will have to choose their allegiance, A or B.

I am presuming that this nation is a democracy, with a legitimately elected government. "Brussels" (i.e.: The European Union), whether you like it or not, also is a democratic institution, with a legitimately elected parliament and other representatives appointed by the government of member states (all of those democracies; and also Hungary).

In the event where there is a contradiction (and there eventually are some), those should be solved by politicians, courts, governments. It's not up to a cop to choose allegiances. He should follow the law, to the best understanding and direction of the institution he serves.

The police is subject to local and national governments. The direction will come from those. And then it is up to this hypothetical nation government to sort out its differences with the bloc through the established channels.

Because, again, a serious and respectable country honors its commitments. When something becomes law in the EU, to my understanding, there is a period until this has to be adopted in the member states as part of their law as well.

> They are held in higher emotional regard, as they have behind them a long legacy of struggle and memory of people whose lives were martyred in a fight for national freedom.

This ks absolutely irrelevant, and not how a serious country conducts itself. The constitution is not immutable. There are avenues for it to change, following established procedure. You for some reason pretend the constitution is overridden when no such thing happens.

> Which is actually why Brussels shouldn't push some things too hard.

The irony here is that the "Brussels" that in your view is "pushing" too hard, typically is the EU council or EU commission.

Those bodies are either formed by the heads of state and of each country, or by officials appointed by those same heads of state.

The countries are all in on those changes you think is being "imposed".