That's a bit of a touchy subject that exposes the fact that the EU has repurposed a system for designing industry standards (not laws) and has a shaky legal foundation.

To some extent countries are bound by EU law, but what this means depends on the institutions and legal structure within that country. Although the EU tends to claim they have final say, but how can someone interpreting national law agree with that if the EU goes against the law they are interpreting? Even if the EU is right they can only ask members to acoid contradiction, they lack the force to demand it.

Yeah this sounds like another scam. I big one. We should really find another way to govern societies.

The EU is not a government. It's a standard body for countries and their governments.

Ohh. But doesnt it push and control legislation? If it was just a standards body, couldn't countries governments just approve or deny recommendations at will?

It seems like its operating as a government too me, but maybe I am not seeing the whole picture.

Governments also codify into law that everything X standardizes is automatically a regulation for other standard bodies. Road and building standards work that way: they are just standards issued by a random association and the government has stated, that all developments in their jurisdiction need to follow this associations standards.

The government could also do this for the EU, it's called leaving the EU.

Some of its standards supersede national law (I think it was the regulations that did so, amd standards needed to be built into national law, could be the other way around).

And this makes a lot of sense with rules about food safety, product standards etc. It almost makes sense for privacy protections. It makes very little sense for surveillance laws.