On July 27, Shalva Papuashvili, the Chairman of the Parliament of Georgia, argued that membership in the European Union should be viewed as a means of protecting national interests rather than an objective in itself, stressing that Brexit demonstrated this reality for both current and prospective members. Papuashvili stated that the key issue is not only when Georgia may join the EU, but what kind of union it would be joining and whether new members would enjoy equal rights and status. He emphasized that the consensus principle remains the main safeguard for smaller member states, allowing them to defend their national interests and prevent decisions that could harm them.

According to Papuashvili, there is an increasing perception that major European countries are seeking greater control over the EU. He noted that, according to the German Foreign Minister, twelve countries have already backed Germany's proposal to abolish unanimous decision-making within the bloc. If implemented, he argued, the EU would shift from a union of equal members to one dominated by larger powers, undermining both the political balance in Europe and the principles on which the union was founded. Papuashvili emphasized that the consensus mechanism ensures small states are not sidelined by the political interests of larger members or majority voting. He stated that it gives countries the ability to block decisions detrimental to their interests and require their concerns to be taken into account. Without this mechanism, he argued, small states would lose their primary instrument for protecting their sovereignty whenever their interests conflict with those of the majority.

He further stated that eliminating consensus would go beyond the voluntary sharing of sovereignty currently associated with EU membership. Instead, it would amount to an almost complete loss of meaningful sovereignty, as countries would be compelled to accept obligations against their will. "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," Papuashvili stated, adding that such a country risks becoming "a small region or province of a much larger political system." Papuashvili argued that while such a model could benefit larger states because of their political and economic influence, it would be "a catastrophic change" for smaller countries. He questioned the value of EU membership if its principal advantages and leverage were removed before accession, emphasizing that membership is valuable because it enables states to support favorable decisions, advance their interests, and block harmful ones.

He also suggested that, under such circumstances, remaining outside the EU could prove more advantageous for a small state, as it would retain the freedom to make independent decisions. Papuashvili further argued that one possible indirect objective of the current debate is to halt the EU's enlargement process. According to Papuashvili, candidate countries are no longer being offered membership in the EU as it exists today, but rather entry into a reformed system in which they would assume the obligations of membership while having fewer rights and less influence over decision-making. He concluded that the central issue is not merely the timing of accession, but "what kind of European Union are we offered membership in, with what rights and with what level of equal member status?" He stressed that membership which deprives a country of its sovereign rights and lacks mechanisms to protect them "is not integration, but the abolition of sovereignty."