I'm British, with the snippet of legal training appropriate to a one-time would-be chartered accountant, and I'm acutely aware that the German legal tradition i

I'm British, with the snippet of legal training appropriate to a one-time would-be chartered accountant, and I'm acutely aware that the German legal tradition is hugely different to the British one, so while i have taken care to understand what follows, I am not an expert and may be mistaken. There is no error in my logic, but the subtleties are tricky. Constitutions are two different things: they are literal agreements, with a semantics, and they are a state of affairs, that enforces the agreement. In countries where the supreme authority is a court that has a high level of public trust, as in Germany, it's common to forget about the latter part of the arrangement and take the constitution to be the literal agreement. Some other countries, like Britain which does not even have a single document that codifies the agreement, this is not forgotten. My understanding of the matter is that the German supreme court is essentially saying that it accepts the state of affairs has changed, i.e. it is not the only court that gets to decide matters because of constitutional supremacy, without saying that it will agree with EU law if it is asked to decide on matters. What is being called #polexit is that a body that the Polish government claims has constitutionl authority has effectively rejected the state-of-affairs part of the constitution. In fact, the situation is constitutionally dubious: the body the government formed to do this does not appear to have the power the governement claims it does according to Poland's constitutional law. This is a quite different situation. My guess is that the Polish government will not succeed in their strategy, but they have undoubtedly created a huge crisis, both in Poland and the EU.