“When repeatedly, for months the certain MP insults other Members of Parliament and his colleagues, team members and Government members, it naturally means crossing of the red lines and it is impossible to argue about it”, - the Speaker stated about exclusion of MP David Chichinadze from Georgian Dream party.

It was a belated decision, though it had its objective reasons. In response to the question about the changes in the Majority, he stated that no changes are to be expected. “As to this very case, it was a belated decision, though it had its objective reasons. As to the further changes in Majority, I believe that the changes are not to be expected. We will naturally consult within the team, including about the conceptual issues and I believe that we will be able to stay unified similar to the last sessions during the last two years. The team is united, we cherish common aspiration and principles and we will be unified about these principles in the future”.

No other Members of Parliament acted as David Chichinadze did, the Speaker noted adding that he crossed the red lines. No mobility is to be expected within the Majority, the Speaker noted. “No other MPs have acted like David Chichinadze did. When you call your colleagues Communist Union members and collective Zardiashvili etc., it means you cross the red lines. No other MPs have acted like this and hence, no one can have such expectation. It was one certain MP that crossed the lines. I cannot explain his reasons. There may exist some doubts and assumptions but I cannot explain why he did it. As to any further mobility, it is not expected. We will actively consult within the team on all the issues to resume our activity within the Majority”.

It was demonstrated as allegedly D. Chichinadze was excluded because of the statements made towards the Speaker but D. Chichinadze has been insulting other MPs as well. “It is demonstrated in this light but in fact, I can name our team members towards whom insulting statements have been made. Numerous insulting statements have been made towards the team members and the party. All red lines have been crossed. I have heard so-called experts speaking nonsense about the party discipline, which does not exist in the democratic regime and is ridiculous. I have personally defended the thesis about the parties. If anyone even slightly is aware about the European party systems, they know that party discipline is something they have invented and maintained. Unfortunately, we have such experts making misleading demonstrations about the developments in the Parliament or beyond. Let’s just imagine any opposition party: for instance Otar Kakhidze from the European Georgia to say about his team members that they are “Giga Bokerias” or “Khatuna Gogorishvilis”, it will naturally serves the immediate ground for his exclusion, which means that we cannot argue about the mere truth but unfortunately, when so-called experts, aged or young speak about such aspects, these aspects are misleadingly revealed. When for months one certain MP insults his team members and the Government, it means crossing of the red lines and it is impossible to argue about it”.

MP can appeal the decision of the Party secretariat to the Political Council. Upon the principal decisions, the active consultations are being held within the party and with the Party Chair. “The procedure is stipulated under the Party Statute, which envisages that the decision of the secretariat can be appealed to the Political Council within 14 days. Hence, this MP can appeal the decision and see who voted for and who against his exclusion from the party. I assure you that we hold active consultations within the party, including with the Party Chair upon the principal decisions. Correspondingly, certain expectations shall exist about the decisions. The decisions can be appealed to the political council to put the decision on re-consideration but as to exclusion basics, they cannot be logically put under doubt and unfortunately, some so-called experts speak about it, even some team members made such statements. Everyone clearly knew about the grounds for exclusion. When a person repeatedly insults his team members, naturally the ground exists and the statements that someone was excluded because of criticism are ridiculous or they are ordered. How experts can state that D. Chichinadze was excluded because of criticism when everyone knew contrary. I don’t know the hidden meanings but we know that similar statements are sometimes made in Georgian political area, media or society and it becomes clear later that the certain, including mercantile interests stand behind these statements”.