The European Parliament has adopted a resolution on Georgia based on reports from 2023–2024
The European Parliament has adopted a resolution on Georgia based on the 2023–2024 reports. The document states that the situation in Georgia has significantly deteriorated since the European Commission's report on Georgia was published on October 30, 2023. The resolution was passed with 490 votes in favor and 147 against.
This is the European Parliament's first report on Georgia as an EU candidate country. It evaluates Georgia's progress based on the Commission's 2023 and 2024 reports and sets out the Parliament's official position on EU–Georgia relations.
The resolution does not recognize the results of the October 2024 parliamentary elections or the legitimacy of the Georgian Dream government. It therefore declares the new repressive laws adopted by the ruling party to be illegal.
The resolution condemns pressure on civil society, the political opposition, and independent media, and calls on EU member states to independently impose personal sanctions on those responsible for democratic backsliding in Georgia and for supporting the Georgian Dream regime.
The report also calls for disconnecting Georgia from SWIFT and imposing sectoral sanctions.
According to the resolution, the European Parliament:
● Strongly condemns the violent repression, arbitrary and politically motivated detentions without sufficient legal basis, and the systematic torture of peaceful protesters, civil society representatives, political opponents, and media figures;
● Demands that Georgian authorities refrain from the use of force, respect freedom of assembly and expression, and repeal the recently adopted repressive legislation aimed at suppressing public protests, particularly through excessive fines;
● Expresses serious concern over the growing number of political prisoners and reiterates its call for their immediate and unconditional release;
● Calls for effective and credible investigations into all acts of violence and for those responsible to be held accountable;
● Voices concern over the lack of judicial independence, noting that senior judges linked to Georgian Dream are overseeing politically motivated trials against peaceful protesters and government critics;
● Deeply regrets that the ruling Georgian Dream party failed to seize the historic opportunity granted to Georgia as an EU candidate to advance along the path of European integration, while noting that the vast majority of the population continues to support EU integration;
● Notes that candidate status was granted to Georgia despite the alarming trajectory of the Georgian Dream government, which has increasingly diverged from European values and democratic principles;
● Warns that the upcoming municipal elections in autumn 2025 will take place against a deteriorating legal environment, worsened by legislative amendments passed in December 2024, ongoing political repression, and intensified persecution of opposition forces;
● Stresses that under Georgian Dream's rule, Georgia has not only failed to make progress but has actually regressed on key elements of the European Commission's nine-step recommendations, despite government claims to the contrary;
● Emphasizes that Georgia's EU integration process has effectively stalled due to continued democratic backsliding and the rigging of the October 2024 parliamentary elections, marking a clear shift toward authoritarian rule, further illegal capture of state institutions, and the adoption of anti-democratic laws that contradict the values and principles of the European Union;
● Agrees with the conclusions of the European Council of June 27, 2024, that the Georgian government's current course threatens the country's EU integration, and urges Georgian Dream to return to the path of democratic reform and Euro-Atlantic integration;
● Condemns the dismissal of around 700 civil servants since December 2024 for supporting EU integration or participating in pro-European protests;
● Stresses the need for an immediate and comprehensive reassessment of EU policy toward Georgia in light of the ongoing democratic decline, increasingly repressive political and legislative environment, erosion of democratic achievements and reforms, weakening of democratic institutions, and consolidation of power by the ruling party.
● Emphasizes the responsibility of Bidzina Ivanishvili and other officials and political leaders – including Irakli Kobakhidze, Shalva Papuashvili, Vakhtang Gomelauri, Tbilisi mayor and Georgian Dream secretary general Kakha Kaladze, and former Georgian Dream chairman Irakli Garibashvili – for the deterioration of the political process in Georgia. They contributed to the democratic backsliding that led to authoritarian consolidation of power and contradicted the Euro-Atlantic goals enshrined in the constitution;
● Calls for the immediate imposition of targeted personal sanctions against Bidzina Ivanishvili, his family members, and his companies, and urges the European Union, in cooperation with the United Kingdom, to freeze his financial assets;
● Reminds the governments of Hungary and Slovakia of the principle of sincere cooperation, which requires member states to refrain from actions that could undermine the EU's objectives;
● Urges the governments of Hungary and Slovakia to align their foreign policies with EU positions and principles and to lift their veto on sanctions against those responsible for democratic backsliding and the suppression of legitimate protests in Georgia;
● Condemns the unilateral actions of the Hungarian government aimed at legitimizing Georgian Dream;
● Calls on the Georgian authorities to hold new parliamentary elections under independent international and domestic observation;
● Urges the European Commission to review the EU's policy toward Georgia, including monitoring the implementation of the EU–Georgia Association Agreement.
What else does the resolution say?
● Given the current political and legal conditions, the 2025 municipal elections pose a serious challenge for any potential participant expecting a free and fair electoral process. Such participation is likely to be used by the self-proclaimed government to legitimize the current status quo;
● The upcoming elections cannot offer a genuine opportunity for the Georgian people to express their democratic will unless imprisoned and detained opposition leaders are released and unless the elections are held in an improved electoral environment – under independent and impartial electoral management and credible international observation – to ensure a truly fair, free, and transparent process.
Commentary
Salome Samadashvili, opposition Lelo – Strong Georgia: 'The resolution discussed and adopted today by the European Parliament is especially important because on July 15, the European Council is set to discuss its policy toward Georgia.
Ahead of this historic debate, it is crucial for us that the European Parliament clearly states its political position on key issues such as the illegitimacy of the Ivanishvili regime, the need for sanctions against it, and broader support for the Georgian people.
I believe this resolution makes it absolutely clear that unless there are political changes—specifically, new parliamentary elections – not only will Georgia's EU accession process remain frozen, as it already is, but we also risk losing important achievements such as visa-free travel to the EU.
This resolution clarifies the situation especially for those who still consider themselves supporters of Georgian Dream. It is an important political document that should be carefully read by anyone who cares about Georgia's future and its European path.'
News in Georgia
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Slovakia aims for agreement by Tuesday on end of Russian gas supplies, sanctions
PRAGUE, July 12 (Reuters) - Slovakia aims to reach an agreement with the European Commission and EU partners by Tuesday on guarantees it will not suffer from the end of Russian gas supplies and on a new sanctions package against Russia, Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Saturday. Slovakia has been blocking the 18th sanctions package over its disagreement with a separate Commission proposal to end all imports of Russian gas from 2028, which Slovakia argues could cause shortages, a rise in prices and transit fees, and damage claims from Russian supplier Gazprom ( opens new tab.
Daily Mirror
4 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
'Kemi Badenoch may hate the 1970s but Starmer should look to them'
The Tories are re-telling their favourite fairytale about the time a nasty wolf in left-wing clothing ate the heart out of Britain. At PMQs, Kemi Badenoch praised Norman Tebbit for rescuing this country from the Labour-run "chaos of the 1970s" before arguing that Keir Starmer wants to return us to that chaotic decade by flirting with a wealth tax. Well, seeing as you weren't alive in those bell-bottom days Kemi, let me give you some facts. Life was far from perfect in the 70s. Racism, sexism and homophobia were given free passes, the global oil crisis and shrinking post-Empire markets caused a run on the Pound, police corruption was off the scale and thanks to weak management, chronic underinvestment and powerful trade unions, industrial relations resembled a warzone. But it was, in many respects, a glorious time to be alive. There was a strong sense of community, belief in public services, free higher education, council houses aplenty, workers grafted for fewer hours in more secure jobs, The Clash and Sex Pistols ushered a new era of music, watching football was as cheap as chips and Thatcher had yet to turn Britain into a selfish, divided bearpit where only the strong survived. Plus, 1976 was officially the year when incomes in this country were at their most equal. Indeed, the only European country where the gap between rich and poor was narrower was Sweden. But Thatcher came to power at the end of the 70s and decreed this equality nonsense had gone too far. So she let the free markets rip and slashed higher rates of tax, helping the rich gorge on the nation's wealth and leaving the poor, the weak and the old industrial heartlands to rot. The gap between the top and the bottom in the UK has only carried on widening, which is why today we are the second most unequal G7 economy after America and the second most unequal nation in Europe after Bulgaria. The richest 70,000 people now take home 67 times more than the average worker, with CEOs like Tesco's Ken Murphy picking up £10 million last year, 431 times more than his company's mean wage. Recent research from The Equality Trust showed the UK's richest 50 families have more wealth than half the population and the billionaire count has soared from 15 in 1990 to 165 last year. We live in times of peak inequality making us an impoverished, unhealthy country where public services have stagnated, the economy has flatlined and a third of children live below the poverty line. Which is why the likes of Neil Kinnock is calling on Starmer to bring in a wealth tax on assets worth more than £10million and why this generation of Tories hate the idea almost as much as they hate the 1970s. Because equality is anathema to them. Whether it's Kinnock's tax on assets, a mansion tax, increasing capital gains tax, a new tax band for the super-wealthy or slashing relief on pensions for the richest, the government has to act. It's no longer a question of whether Labour's reputation can afford a wealth tax, it's whether, in the face of staggering debt and limited options, it can afford not to address the terminal dysfunction caused by a vampiric economy in which most of the wealth gets sucked up by the few at the top. It's about our country Stayin' Alive, as we used to sing in bell-bottom days.
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Young people don't feel part of the EU – and they're right
The former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi produced his much-awaited prescription for how to reboot Europe's economy last year. The Draghi report was rightly applauded as a rude awakening for a European Union that is far too complacent about its own obsolescence. Draghi concluded that an €800bn-a-year public spending boost would be needed to end years of stagnation. If Europe did not catch up with its rivals, he warned, it would face a 'slow and agonising' decline. And yet, one ingredient was missing from Draghi's recipe. In his nearly 400-page roadmap for rescuing the EU, the word 'democracy' is mentioned only three times (once in the bibliography). By contrast, 'integration' is used 96 times and 'defence' 391 times. It's true that Draghi's report was explicitly devoted to the future of European competitiveness (and not more widely to the Europe of the future). But if the EU can't find a way to better engage its citizens, it will be difficult to achieve any more of the integration that Draghi says is indispensable to make a still-fragmented single market more competitive and Europe more capable of defending itself. One thing is sure: the old method of decision-making that a generation of European leaders relied on is obsolete. We urgently need to reform the EU, but the top-down approach to doing so is no longer fit for purpose. True, the debate on the 'democratic deficit' is as old as the EU itself. Direct elections to the European parliament, the first and only international assembly elected in this way, were introduced in 1979 to respond to the same criticism. However, at least until the end of the last century, the discussion on European democracy was seen as a niche for thinktanks – something nice to have to complete an integration project mostly run by an enlightened elite. Today, the picture has radically changed: the European parliament's powers have increased over time, but only about half of people who are entitled to vote in European elections bother to do so. Less than 50% of those vote for the two political 'families' (centre-right and socialist) that for decades provided the consensus that the EU project required to function. And no less worryingly, according to a recent survey from Cluster17, a French polling company, the percentages of European citizens who say the EU is not democratic and instead describe it as bureaucratic and disconnected are higher among younger age groups (becoming a solid majority among those aged 34 and under). More competitiveness requires a larger EU budget (it currently stands at just 1% of GDP) and more money for European 'public goods' (goods for which there is a clear economic case for producing them at EU level, for example, satellite-based telecommunication services or trans-European high-speed trains). But you can't ask for new taxation to fund joint EU spending without more representation. More common defence should be a commonsense direction given the existential threats that Europe is facing and the inefficiencies that running 27 military budgets imply. However, it requires a sufficiently wide public perception that such spending is going to benefit every citizen of the community we want to defend. And yet, surprisingly perhaps, according to Cluster17's poll, younger people feel less European even than their parents, preferring to call themselves citizens of the world. Without a European demos, it will be difficult to create an EU army – if that is what emerges from the debates on security – but also a real European democracy. And if we have neither citizenship nor engagement, we risk a political backlash like the ones we have seen on the green deal or the austerity measures that came after the global financial crash and the eurozone crisis, even when the policies are theoretically right. Last month about 100 policymakers, politicians, journalists, academics and students from all the major European countries (EU and beyond) gathered in Siena to consider how a Europe of the future could deal with some of its biggest challenges, such as common defence, the threat posed by global trade wars and AI. The outcome is a paper that prioritises identifying ways to better engage voters in each of the big decisions. A recent European Commission initiative – a citizens' panel in which 150 randomly selected EU citizens were enlisted to help the EU decide how to spend its money in the future – was considered a good start. But the conference in Siena identified changes that will be essential if citizens' recommendations are to be included in a systematic way. In EU budgetary decision-making for example, the language must change so that citizens can understand what goal is being achieved in any spending plans. The budgetary logic must be 'zero based' (which in accountancy parlance means not decided on the basis of incremental adjustments to past spending). Such an approach could ensure that 'participatory democracy' becomes a mainstream instrument of EU policymaking. No less crucial is a set of 'positive actions' that a group led by Luca Verzichelli of the University of Siena drew up to promote the European demos. The most eye-catching proposal – and one that attracted the broadest consensus – was to make the Erasmus student programme free and mandatory for all EU students in secondary and tertiary-level education. A quarter of the money spent by the EU on farmers would be enough to cover an expanded version of Erasmus, the Vision thinktank that convened the Siena conference calculates. I have no doubt the results would be more transformational. The democracy deficit is not just a European problem. Representative institutions are suffering more broadly from what seems to be a form of technological obsolescence. The internet has massively altered the control of information, which is power. This requires a radical transformation of the mechanisms through which power is acquired, restrained and exercised; and of the instruments we use to transmit individual preferences and convert them into collective choices. The EU needs more clarity about what it is for, and it needs to go well beyond superficially involving citizens to give its messages cosmetic legitimacy. But it has the paradoxical advantage of being an unfinished project. This means it has the flexibility to experiment with new forms of participation, policymaking and citizenship. It must urgently acknowledge that the only way to protect democracy is to adapt its forms to a radically different technological context. Francesco Grillo is a visiting fellow at the European University Institute, Florence and director of the thinktank Vision
