If int’l partners give “acceptable” recommendations on transparency bill, Parliament will use veto mechanism - Parliament Speaker

The Parliament Speaker explained the recommendations could not be taken into consideration at the third reading of the bill, but said the Parliament would consider not overcoming the President’s veto on the draft bill “if they [international partners] give us a recommendation that we agree with and that's worth sharing”. Photo via Parliament of Georgia

Agenda.ge, 12 May 2024 - 13:05, Tbilisi,Georgia

Georgian Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili on Sunday said “if Georgia’s international partners give acceptable recommendations” regarding the controversial domestic bill on transparency of foreign influence, the legislative body “will use a veto mechanism to ensure consideration of the recommendations”.

Papuashvili noted the Georgian Government had offered “meaningful discussions” on the draft law to foreign diplomats, domestic opposition, non-governmental organisations and media outlets and was “always ready” to hear recommendations and advice.

In response, we heard chants, slogans, and stencils from everyone. It is especially surprising that the Europeans acted in such an un-European manner and instead of a content discussion, they talked to the Georgian society with posters, whether something [the transparency bill] is in line with [the European] values or not”, he emphasised.

The Parliament Speaker explained the recommendations could not be taken into consideration at the third reading of the bill, but said the Parliament would consider not overcoming the President’s veto on the draft bill “if they [international partners] give us a recommendation that we agree with and that's worth sharing”.

He also pointed out that the proposed Georgian law on transparency, which calls for the registration of non-commercial legal entities and media outlets in the country as “pursuing the interests of a foreign power” if they derive more than 20 percent of their funding from abroad, was the “softest” one and included “minimal obligations” compared to the “similar laws” in force or proposed in the United States, United Kingdom, France and the European Union.