This article argues that constitutional pluralism is not a theory merely for times of equanimity, but crucially, in times of constitutional conflict. Given that it rests on the premise of regarding law as a dynamic, incrementally developing creature, constitutional conflict is no exceptional event, and represents an important element of the system's functioning. However, this does not mean that every point of conflict necessarily means progress for the pluralist system as a whole: it is possible to distinguish constructive from destructive conflict. In this respect, this piece will put forward a normative argument concerning the limits to which the auto-correct function of constitutional pluralism can stretch. In so doing, this piece will look at the recent jurisprudence of constitutional conflict at the EU and national level to demonstrate the limits of constructive conflict, as well as show how the example of Poland falls into the category of destructive conflict.

Relation between national constitutions and EU law – Constitutional conflict – Role of national institutions in avoiding constitutional conflict – A need for a holistic approach in European constitutionalism – Constitutional courts put forward constitutional requirements next to constitutional reservations – The need to bring constitutions in line with EU law before accession – The role of parliaments and governments in avoiding conflict when implementing EU law – Role of national institutions in decision-making at EU level

Founding principles and rights in new Statuti (fundamental regional charters) – Expression of sub – national constitutionalism? – Constitutional court: Statuti not regional constitutions – Provisions on founding principles and rights ‘cultural statements’ lacking any legal effect – Tertium Genus in addition to ‘prescriptive’ and ‘programmatic’ norms? – Various scenarios for potential legal conflicts between the national Constitution and the ‘cultural statements’