Nope, no consensus at all, just majority of Bitcoin core developers which represents only small part in Bitcoin ecosystem. At least Bitcoin core developers are honest and telling clearly they cannot dictate the future of Bitcoin thus encouraging others for developing other full node clients working with (and defining) Bitcoin protocol, so no sabotaging at all, just finding full node client which gets widest popularity among Bitcoiners. There is not realistic other option than Bitcoin core today, but given the unpopular features like RBF, SegWit as scaling option, and full blocks in 2016/2017, Im pretty sure the competetion finally starts soon and we will be not in situation where one group of developers controls the future of the whole Bitcoin ecosystem anymore, especially when they are unwilling to hear substantional (if not majority) view.
Good luck with your fairy tale. People call out on SegWit for its "complexity" but they have no problems with several implementations and different groups of developers (it certainly makes it "easier" for a person new to Bitcoin). Anyone who understands features like SegWit endorses them, the others (most, not all) are ignorant and quickly jump to conclusions. You sound a bit like Peter R to me.
I understand SegWit pretty well and I have two issues with SegWit:
First there is already complain Bitcoin is not easy enought for average person, now add two types of transactions, normal and SegWit ones and different security under different clients (full core, little core, SVP clients) for both types of transactions and average person will not get it at all and will be not able to understand the small risks associated with SegWit transactions. Not to mention some hardcore small blockers (including services) might choose not accepting SegWit transactions at all and it can become mess for average users.
Second it makes technical analysis of future scalling much harder because with SegWit total block sizes can be from 1 MB to about 2-3 MB all based how much SegWit transactions actually become used by Bitcoin users. Now when you consider scale Bitcoin peer-to-peer transactions more with increasing the base 1 MB to more like 2 MB, all of sudden you get possible total block sizes from 2MB to about 6 MB again based how much SegWit transactions become used. Now it might come to technical conclusion over 4 MB are not recommended safe with the technology at that time and althought maximum block sizes fit 1.5 MB all the time (with SegWit signatures) and more scaling is necessary for more peer-to-peer transactions, it might be risky because potential attack of generating about 6 MB blocks can be used as a argument for not scaling Bitcoin at that time at all, even though simple scaling to 3 MB or 4MB without using SegWit would be acceptable.
Transaction mallebeality can be solved in more elegant way than SegWit with much simpler scalling to just 2MB in the same long planed hardfork and no complicated SegWit is necessary (I guess SegWit is applauded by supporteers only because it can be done in soft fork).