It almost sounds like there are 2 legal systems and rules if law that operate in one physical area! And something can be legal in one, and illegal in another. But that can't be right, that sounds insane. What's the point of state law then?
Can someone explain this like I'm 5?
(1) The council can introduce bylaws which cover a single area (eg. a park).
(2) All sorts of national organizations have their own bylaws (eg. the railways, canals).
(3) You can even have "laws" affecting individual houses (they are called "covenants"). eg. my house has a binding covenant that stops me from keeping chickens.
BTW the EU isn't really a law maker as such. Our contract with being in the EU means that we implement the EU directives, but in theory we could refuse -- the EU would fine us and/or kick us out if we did this.
Incorrect. Directives do exist, and they are transcribed by members into national law. However, Regulations have immediate effect across all member states, no transposition required: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)
Also, there is no mechanism in the current treaties to throw out a member from the EU - all members must agree for a member to leave the EU.
Fines do exist for non-enforcement of EU law though.
It went all the way up to European level, and there they overturned German law.
The state and federal line is the brightest, as prosecution of federal crimes goes through different channels than the prosecution of state-level crimes.
There is some debate as to whether federal or state laws should take precedence here, though the argument is kind of academic, as it's obvious the federal government wins in real life. From a constitutional standpoint, there's a decent case for the state's laws superseding the federal, but I mean, the state can't really stop the feds from arresting people for breaking federal law.
In this case, one would think the Federal government would have more important laws to enforce.