All EU legislation now has to conform to Germany's Basic Law
That's the same for all other member states and their constitutions - also one of the reasons why European law isn't decreed "as is", but translated into national law. But as you rightly noted, Germany does not have a constitution, but a basic law in lieu of a constitution. The German states however have constitutions (That's also why legally there has never been a German reunification. Instead, 5 states declared their independence from the German Democratic Republic and then formally joined the FRG under the provisions of the Basic Law.), 16 of them. So the difference between Germany and the other EU member nations is that German Bundeslaender are states in their own right and have to be treated as such by the federal government
Karlsruhe doesn't see it that way. Remember that the Constitutional Court (they don't have that name for no reason) recently stopped the Sunday shopping days in Berlin, using the Grundgesetz as supreme law?
And you're wrong once more. Read this
Spiegel article, where it quotes Die Tageszeitung:
(The Karlsruhe verdict is) also a verdict that matches the moods of other nations. The danger is that courts in other countries follow Karlsruhe's example and make themselves overseers of the EU too. They need to be aware that too much sand in the motor can stop even the most robust engine ...
No other EU member state requires that the Lisbon Treaty conforms to its constitution; only Germany. Frankly, all the other countries to some degree have modified
their national laws and constitutions to accommodate the Treaty of Lisbon and prior treaties, along with the decisions, directives and regulations out of Brussels.
And it's not remotely bothersome that the Grundgesetz is so accommodating of a "treaty" of law that resembles the Soviet Constitution and the Constitution of the People's Republic of China so closely?
Declaring member states "incompetent" to perform certain tasks?
Actually the operative words are "only if and insofar as", i.e. limiting the cases where this applies. And yes, some EU states on their own might be incompetent to perform certain tasks like e.g. defending the EUs eastern or southern borders against illegal immigration. In this case the EU operates in concert with the respective nations. Or do you think New Mexico is responsible for its southern border alone without federal involvement?
The words "only if" and "insofar as" do not limit anything. Limits have to be spelled out; otherwise it's left to the government at the top (the only entity that has "exclusive competences"; and with the Karlsruhe decision, that's Germany) to decide where such applies. Who watches the watchdog?
By comparing New Mexico arbitrarily to unnamed EU member states, are you saying that the EU is indeed a "United States of Europe", like some EU-defenders deny? The US military is not the chief entity patrolling the Mexican border, FYI.
Please explain how the US states have a foreign policy independent of Washington? So Vermont could opt out of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
Where is there a Vermont military force being forced to participate against its will? Last I saw, there was no declaration of war by Congress, so there is nothing to "opt out" of, as it were.
You should read the "advice and consent" clause of Article 2 Section 2. The US has actual representative democracy (versus the politburo/Supreme Soviet relationship between the EU's Commission and Parliament), and there is no shutting out of states' wills (and/or that of their people) as under the "exclusive competence" clauses in the Treaty of Lisbon. So please don't cite "opt-outs" when they're not available to any EU member states, but US states can indeed avail of them via assertion of their rights through Congress.
So Otto von Habsburg speaks for the EU as whole? The context was a completely different one: Habsburg lobbied for Catholicism and a Christian EU when he said that the EU was the heir to the Habsburg empire
Did you miss the bit about Catholic social teaching actually being in the Treaty of Lisbon, never mind prior treaties regarding the European Union?
It's not unusual for one voice to speak for a whole entity, besides, even if it's one voice at a time; and if several of these voices at the top agree, that spells policy. Does the name Franz Josef Strauß ring a bell? the "Strong Man of Europe"? (He and Helmut Kohl differed on the EU only with regards to what "wing" should govern, Kohl clearly on the left. Kohl was the fellow responsible for destabilizing Yugoslavia, BTW.)