Well, no. The entities united in the European Union are still Countries - Sovereign States, "governments over permanent populations in defined territories enabled to relate with peers, entering as part of the international community after recognition from at least one peer". They have embassies and deal with embassies.
The distinction you are trying to convey, allegedly changing the scenario in energy trade, is not clear.
EU law arguably has a greater weight than individual constitutions now. There are some countries like Poland which claim to not accept that, but the principle of EU law supremacy has become generally accepted (even without a referendum in that sense...)
The actual situation is a bit more complex. Basically, the EU would argue that EU law trumps national law, and this is also in some of the contracts... however, there is no higher authority here in Germany than the consitution, some parts of which cannot be changed. Basically, if our constitutional court decides that some of the things going on in the EU are unconstitutional, and the legislative can't change those paragraphs in the constitution, then Germany would crash out of the EU. This is similar for a lot of the other member states, so there's a lot of careful maneuvring to avoid these kinds of confrontations.
One situation where this almost happened was during the discussion on Eurobonds. [0]
The EU Council and the EU Commission can issue "Directives", which States must implement, and "Regulations", direct laws, with power to override national ones. (Plus "Decisions", "Recommendations" and "Opinions" - see https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law... ) The possibility of "Regulations" is clearly and explicitly a delicate matter which has to find the right space for movement in a collection of Sovereign States.
Constitutions and laws are very different entities: a Constitution is the Social Contract to which citizens subscribe, the collection of the guidelines defining the National Project. This already entails, a Constitution indicates a Country - it strengthens the point.
This said, I am still confused about that original idea some proposed, according to which Countries and Not-Sovereign States have critical differences in energy trade.
EU law is always supreme. If a law in France violates EU law, then any foreign EU national in France with standing can use French courts to have the law annulled.
> The revolutionary case of NV Algemene Transport-Expedite Onderneming Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (9), addressed this matter, but also the issue of supremacy. In regard to Article 12 EEC (now Article 30 TFEU), The ECJ held ‘the objective of the EEC treaty… implies that this treaty is more than an agreement which merely creates obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights’ (10), giving the article direct effect. This permits the rights of individuals and organisations to be enforceable in national courts, as a way of creating uniformity amongst member states to maximise the efficiency and application of EU law, despite the fact that the treaty articles generally regulated trade between member states [0].
This is known as the Doctrine of Direct Effect. The ECJ is effectively a 'supreme court' for the EU.
They no longer control their supreme law, nor do they control their own money.
Since there are in a fixed currency arrangement, it makes no sense to see 'nuclear' stopping at the German border. The price is the same across the Eurozone, and the grids are interconnected.
Compare that with the current imports from the UK which not only varies with the exchange rate, but the export influences the exchange rate.
Germany declared itself a nuclear free zone in the same way that Derbyshire declared itself a nuclear free zone in the UK. They knew the nuclear power would come over the grid from areas they were pegged to that weren't so bothered.
Well, no. The entities united in the European Union are still Countries - Sovereign States, "governments over permanent populations in defined territories enabled to relate with peers, entering as part of the international community after recognition from at least one peer". They have embassies and deal with embassies.
The distinction you are trying to convey, allegedly changing the scenario in energy trade, is not clear.