Membership in the European Union is not an end in itself, this is not the case for either the current members or the candidate countries, Brexit was the best proof of this - The question is becoming increasingly relevant: what is the point of membership if the main benefits and leverages of membership are taken away from the very beginning?! - Shalva Papuashvili, the Chairman of the Parliament of Georgia, writes on social networks.

According to him, "the main question is not only when we will be accepted into the European Union, but also the main question is what kind of European Union we are offered membership in, with what rights and with what equal member status."

Papuashvili notes that the main guarantee for small states to join the European Union is the principle of consensus, and if the principle of consensus is abolished and decision-making becomes entirely dependent on the will of large states, or solid majorities, small states will lose this fundamental leverage.

“There is a growing impression that the big European countries are planning to take over the EU, which would pose a fundamental threat not only to the political balance of Europe and the enlargement process, but also to the values ​​on which the EU was founded and has stood to this day.

According to the German Foreign Minister, twelve countries have already joined the German initiative to abolish the rule of consensus decision-making in the EU. If this initiative is implemented, the EU will almost certainly turn from a union of equal members into a union governed by the big powers.

Membership in the EU is not an end in itself. This is not the case for either the current members or the candidate countries. Brexit was the best proof of this.

Membership is a means for a country to more reliably protect its national interests, expand its capabilities and gain an influence on international decisions that its size, economic weight and political resources alone cannot achieve.

The main guarantee of this possibility for small states is the principle of consensus. It is the rule of consensus that ensures that the voice of a small state is not lost in the interests of large states and the arithmetic of the majority. It gives a small state the right to block a decision that is detrimental to it and to demand that its own 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 solid majorities, small states will lose this fundamental lever. They will no longer be able to protect their vital interests when these interests do not coincide with the political plans of the majority.

In such a case, there will be not only talk of sharing part of sovereignty by joining the European Union, which today is a voluntary and balanced choice for achieving broader economic, political and security goals. There will be an almost complete loss of real sovereignty.

A state that can no longer block a decision and is forced to make commitments against its will gradually loses not only its freedom to make decisions, but also its statehood. It turns from an independent political entity into a small region or province of a much larger political system.

Such a model may be advantageous for large states, since their size, economic weight and political influence already provide a significant advantage in the decision-making process. But for small countries, this would be a catastrophic change.

Therefore, the question will become increasingly relevant: what is the point of membership if the main benefits and leverage of membership are taken away from the very beginning?

Membership in the European Union is important precisely because a country can support decisions that are beneficial to it, promote its own interests and block decisions that are harmful to it.

If a country is deprived of this opportunity, then the European Union is also deprived of its importance as a means of protecting national interests. Accordingly, the political charm and fundamental motivation of membership disappear.

Moreover, under such conditions, the staying outside may even be more beneficial for a small state, since it will at least retain the freedom to make independent decisions.

It should not be ruled out that one of the indirect goals of this discussion is precisely to stop enlargement. It is becoming increasingly clear that no one is considering accepting new members into the European Union as it exists today.

The candidate countries are not being offered equal membership in the existing union, but a pre-modified system in which they will be fully subject to the obligations of membership, while their rights and leverage will be limited.

Therefore, the main question is not only when we will be accepted into the European Union. The main question is: what kind of European Union are we offered membership in, with what rights and with what level of equal member status? Because membership that deprives a country of state rights and does not provide mechanisms for their protection is not integration, but the abolition of sovereignty,” writes Shalva Papuashvili.