Written by Jeanelle Mercieca Grech
On 10th April 2019, law students were in attendance of GħSL’s ‘The Supremacy of EU Conference’, which was aimed at discussing, debating, and deeply dissecting the supremacy of the European Union.
Present at the conference was Dr Mark Harwood, Director of the European Direct Information Centre at the Institute of European Studies in Malta, who gave an introductory speech. Joining him was Dr Elena Grech, who currently occupies the office of Head of Commission Representation in Malta. Dr Ivan Mifsud. Head of Department of Public Law, also gave a keynote speech, introducing the panellists. He ended his speech by congratulating GħSL’s hard working executive team and hopes that the academics further provide their assistance to the society which is by students, for students.
The first panel was moderated by Emma Sammut, who currently holds the position of Publications Officer within the society. She introduced the speakers: Professor Andrea Pierini from the University of Perugia, Dr Austin Bencini, Dr Tonio Borg, and Dr Ivan Mifsud. The four professors aimed at discussing domestic issues taking on a constitutional approach. They cited several notable cases from the European Court of Justice, and dissected the concepts of supremacy, primacy, and direct effect of Union laws. Furthermore, they underlined the struggle between the EU and Member State constitutions, whilst also making mention of Article 6 of the Constitution of Malta. In light of this, some comparisons were also made to the nature of the United Kingdom’s constitution, which is unwritten and not supreme.
Ultimately, they concluded that the European Union is sui generis and that it is highly unlikely to become a “United State of Europe.”
Additionally, the current affairs in the United Kingdom with regards to the Brexit ordeal may be the consequence of having a parliamentary, rather than constitutional, supremacy. They also believe that in the driving seat of any end-product is a Member State’s parliament in the relationship between the respective Member State and the European Union.
After a quick coffee break, the second panel convened. Dr Ivan Mifsud moderated the panel, and Dr Ivan Sammut and the Hon. Borg Barthet were the panellists. They delved deeply into the “us and them” mentality and compared accession into the Union to a marriage of convenience. When asked about their opinions on supremacy, they likened it to a poison, especially since it comes in the form of rules, and it may be what ultimately led to Brexit. They also asserted that the main issue with Brexit was that the UK did no longer allow the freedom of movement of persons, whereas it allowed the movement of goods, capital, and services. They realised that this goes contrary to the concept on which the European Coal and Steel Community was formed, that is the four freedoms.
From a community standpoint, it was concluded that once a Member States accepts to join the European Union, they must find a solution to give primacy to Union laws and that contradictory laws are unacceptable if a state wishes to be part of the common market. Thus, they drew up a different conclusion than the first panel, which focused more on domestic issues.
After the conference, we interviewed Dr Mifsud to see what he had to say about the conference and about student life.
He firstly praised GħSL for the organisation and success of the conference, only wishing that more time for discussion was allotted. Dr Mifsud believes the relationship that the Faculty of Laws and GħSL have nurtured along the years has been fruitful, and hopes that academics will further aid students in their furtherance of implementing impressive changes. He also noted that more often than not, students are reluctant to ask for advice or help from their lecturers, as the former often paint their professors in a negative light and thus encourages students to change their perspectives about their lecturers. We also asked him how a student can make change happen, by which he advises students to take an active approach and ensure that they strike a balance of study and student activism.