Georgian Parliament Speaker warns of fundamental shift if EU consensus mechanism scrapped

Georgian Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili on Monday said there was a growing impression that Europe’s major powers were seeking to reshape the European Union in a way that would weaken the position of smaller member states, warning that abolishing the bloc’s consensus-based decision-making system would fundamentally alter the nature of the EU and undermine the sovereignty of smaller countries.

In a social media message, Papuashvili noted that 12 countries have now joined Germany’s initiative to abolish the European Union's consensus-based decision-making system.

He argued that the principle of consensus is the primary guarantee for small states seeking EU membership, warning that if it is abolished and decision-making becomes entirely dependent on the will of large states or stable majorities, smaller countries would lose a fundamental instrument for protecting their interests.

“There is a growing impression that Europe's major powers are seeking to take over the European Union, posing a fundamental threat not only to Europe's political balance and the enlargement process, but also to the very values on which the EU was founded and has upheld to this day. According to Germany's Foreign Minister, twelve countries have already joined Germany's initiative to abolish the EU's consensus-based decision-making system. If this initiative is implemented, the European Union will almost certainly transform from a union of equal members into one governed by the major powers”, he said.

“Membership in the European Union is not an end in itself. This is true neither for current members nor for candidate countries. Brexit was the best proof of that. Membership is a means for a country to better protect its national interests, expand its opportunities and gain influence over international decision-making that it could never achieve based solely on its size, economic weight or political resources. For small states, the principle of consensus is the primary guarantee of that opportunity”, Papuashvili continued.

He emphasised that it was precisely the consensus rule that ensured a small country’s voice was not lost amid the interests of larger states and the arithmetic of majority voting and it gives smaller countries the right to block decisions that would harm them and to insist that their national interests be taken into account.

“If the principle of consensus is abolished and decision-making becomes entirely dependent on the will of large states or stable majorities, small countries will lose this fundamental instrument. They will no longer be able to defend their vital interests when those interests do not align with the political plans of the majority. In such a case, it will no longer be a matter of voluntarily and proportionately sharing part of a country's sovereignty in pursuit of broader economic, political and security objectives. Instead, it would amount to the near-total loss of genuine sovereignty”, he noted.

“A state that can no longer block decisions detrimental to its interests and can be forced to accept obligations against its will gradually loses not only its freedom of decision-making but its statehood itself. It ceases to function as an independent political entity and becomes a small region or province within a much larger political system. Such a model may suit large states, as their size, economic weight and political influence already provide them with significant advantages in decision-making. For small countries, however, it would be a catastrophic change. This is why the question is becoming increasingly relevant: what is the point of membership if its greatest benefits and instruments are taken away from you from the outset?”, the Parliament Speaker noted.

Papuashvili further added that the EU membership was important precisely because it allows a country to support decisions that serve its interests, advance its national priorities and prevent decisions that would harm it.

“If a country is deprived of this opportunity, then the EU itself is deprived of its significance as an instrument for protecting national interests. As a result, both the political appeal of membership and its fundamental motivation disappear. Moreover, under such circumstances, remaining outside the European Union may even prove more beneficial for a small state, as it would at least retain the freedom to make its own decisions”, he said.

“Nor should it be ruled out that one of the indirect objectives of this discussion is to halt the enlargement process. It is becoming increasingly clear that no one is considering admitting new members into the European Union as it exists today.Candidate countries are not being offered equal membership in the existing Union but rather entry into a system that has already been fundamentally altered, where they would assume all the obligations of membership while their rights and instruments of influence would be curtailed. Therefore, the key question is not simply when we will join the European Union. The real question is: what kind of European Union are we being invited to join, with what rights, and with what degree of equality as a member? Because membership that strips a country of its sovereign rights without providing mechanisms to protect them is not integration, it is the elimination of sovereignty....Yet, it seems that, just as in mythology, Jupiter may even get away with the abduction of Europe”, Papuashvili concluded.