First Reading of the Draft Resolution (274 OE) of the Riigikogu "Making a Proposal to the Government of the Republic to Prepare and Restore a Militarized Border Guard as a Separate Agency"
Session: 15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd sitting, plenary session
Date: 2024-04-03 18:30
Participating Politicians:
Total Speeches: 37
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 46m
AI Summaries: 37/37 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
Under the third item on the agenda, consideration was given to Draft Resolution 274 of the Riigikogu, submitted by the faction of the Conservative People's Party of Estonia, the aim of which is to prepare for and restore a militarized border guard as a separate agency. Central to the debate was the necessity of establishing a comprehensive, swift, and accountable dialogue between border guard management and the operations of the Defence Forces to ensure the inviolability of the border and territorial defense, even in extreme circumstances. Speakers noted that, in the current situation, the border guard's dispersed management structures and operational capacity might not allow for immediate reaction to hybrid warfare or crisis conditions, and that the need for a single, organized, and independent border guard remains strong.
Decisions Made 1
The Riigikogu did not adopt Bill 274. The motion failed to receive sufficient support: 15 members of parliament participated in the final vote, and the distribution of votes did not yield a majority of affirmative votes. Consequently, the bill is dropped from the proceedings, and the third item on the agenda was concluded.
Most Active Speaker
Alar Laneman, a member of the EKRE faction and the National Defence Committee, was the most active speaker. He served as the leading platform and represented a serious right-wing position on the organization of national defence and border control.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The objective of EKRE faction’s draft bill 274, which is listed as the third item on the agenda, is for the government to prepare for and restore a militarized border guard as a separate agency. The bill is being submitted by Alar Laneman.
Alar Laneman
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Proposal: to establish an independent border guard possessing the full spectrum of necessary capabilities and capable of immediately assuming command in the immediate border zone, ranging from border surveillance to defense, in order to expedite operations, prevent organizational delays, and strengthen Estonia's resistance in the event of hybrid attacks and large-scale invasions.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Vice-Chairman expresses his thanks, notes that there are also questions, and invites Leo Kunnas to take the floor.
Leo Kunnas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Leo Kunnas recalled the question asked at the Narva border guard post regarding blowing up the Friendship Bridge, and the answer that the Defence Forces and the Defence League would decide this by mutual agreement. He then referenced the invasion of Ukraine and the Hamas terrorist attacks, asking whether the situation has significantly improved since that time or not.
Alar Laneman
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Practical implementation is the foundation of crisis preparedness: good plans won't save the day without a single, clear leader and fast, simple, and collaborative action, because crises develop rapidly and responsibility is often divided among multiple agencies.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi calls upon Mart Helme to speak.
Mart Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Mart Helme asks Alar whether other countries in the region have a similar hybrid border guard structure, known as the PPA, or if the border guard there operates as a standalone organization, and why others have not supported our hybrid solution.
Alar Laneman
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Alar Laneman emphasized that Finland is the most suitable role model for us, and Latvia took a different approach when organizing its border control. Although treating Russia as a partner seemed logical at the time, decisions must be viewed in retrospect, and we need to learn from the Finns, because Estonian defense planning has to change, and we must be defended starting from the very first centimeter.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invited Ants Frosch to take the floor.
Ants Frosch
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ants Frosch criticizes the decision to merge the PPA, which was made haphazardly and based on hopeful assumptions between 2007 and 2010. He recalls a past incident where the Minister of the Interior told officials, "You are plants," and asks who will be held accountable if this decision is not reversed, because, for Estonia, this is a matter of life and death.
Alar Laneman
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Alar Laneman emphasizes that the responsibility of state authorities is clear, and if a responsible party is not found, one must be appointed. Furthermore, the world has changed, and we need to ask whether we are in alignment in this regard.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi calls upon Anti Poolamets.
Anti Poolamets
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anti Poolamets describes the situation at the start of the war in Ukraine, where the border was rapidly breached and territory was occupied. He then asks whether we should have a single responsible commander at the border, along with subordinates, who could act immediately (for instance, pressing a button to detonate something, or destroying a bridge)—would such centralized control be more effective than the current delayed reaction?
Alar Laneman
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Efficiency begins even before a situation arises: the border guard structure gathers different types of intelligence in the border area, and it is our duty to define the mission and develop capabilities, taking every possible step toward that goal.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
At the beginning of the address, Arvo Aller was invited onto the stage.
Arvo Aller
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Arvo Aller stresses that the militarized border guard unit established during the EKRE government was left unfinished and must be moved forward, and he questions how great the necessity is and whether those men would be prepared to begin serving in the border guard.
Alar Laneman
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He stresses that although resources are available, there is a need to organize and plan a reasonable amount of personnel for the border guard, and to specify the exact number of company or battalion equivalents. This is because effective organization minimizes personnel requirements, while delays result in greater losses.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi thanks [the previous speaker/committee] and invites Kristo Enn Vaga, a member of the National Defence Committee, to present the positions and decisions of the lead committee.
Kristo Enn Vaga
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The National Defence Committee discussed the draft bill which stipulates the creation of a militarized border guard as a separate agency. However, a majority was not achieved in the 4–4 vote, and the committee therefore decided consensually to submit the bill to the Riigikogu Board for inclusion on the agenda of the April 3 session for its first reading and final vote.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The speaker asks Arvo Aller to ask one question.
Arvo Aller
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Arvo Aller voiced his confusion, asking how a decision could be adopted by a majority of affirmative votes when the result was 4:4.
Kristo Enn Vaga
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vaga pointed out that, pursuant to Section 38 of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act, a majority of affirmative votes is required for the adoption of decisions, and since there was no clear majority in the committee, the National Defense Committee did not support the draft bill, because the number of votes in favor did not exceed the number of votes against.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Speaker Toomas Kivimägi thanks Evelin Poolamets and asks her to be quicker next time.
Evelin Poolamets
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Evelin Poolamets thanks the chairperson and the presenter, and prompted by a question from her neighbor, she asks whether a different framing of the issue would have secured the committee’s support for the draft bill, and if I understood correctly.
Kristo Enn Vaga
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The vote in the National Defence Committee ended in a tie: 4 votes in favor and 4 against, meaning the draft legislation failed to gain support.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
At the end of the presentation, the speaker was sincerely thanked, and it was stated that there were no further questions.
Kristo Enn Vaga
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
It's simply a word of thanks, expressed using the word "Aitäh."
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas opens the debate and calls upon Leo Kunnas, the representative of the EKRE parliamentary group, to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Leo Kunnas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Leo Kunnas respectfully addresses the presiding officer and requests additional time from his colleagues.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas asks for eight minutes.
Leo Kunnas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Leo Kunnas argues that the merger of the police and the border guard was a mistake, stemming from a lack of leadership and vision, which resulted in siloed governance within the state. He proposes two solutions: either restoring the Border Guard as a standalone agency or militarizing the entire Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) to ensure that border defense remains effective during times of crisis and war.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The debate was concluded, no amendments to Draft Bill 274 were submitted, and preparations for the final vote will commence; Kalle Grünthal raised a point of order.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal notes that while "Majority of the composition of the Riigikogu" has been indicated for the voting on the draft bill, the Constitution stipulates for which bills this applies. He argues that in this specific case, Article 73 of the Constitution and the requirement for a simple majority of affirmative votes should apply, requesting that the law be followed.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Riigikogu Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas stated that the adoption of Bill 274 OE requires a majority vote of the Riigikogu's full composition, and the Board follows the opinion of the leading committee and the Legal and Analysis Department, an opinion which he personally shares, while simultaneously stressing that committees have had differing decisions, and a procedural question was also raised by Kalle Grünthal.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal emphasized that the commission must render decisions in accordance with the applicable legal standard and cite the authority that grants such rights, rather than merely stating, "the commission decided."
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas explains which draft resolution requires an absolute majority of the Riigikogu membership and who ultimately makes the decision. Given that the Board holds the position that the leading committee makes the final decision, he puts Draft Resolution 274 to the final vote.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Draft resolution 274 received 15 votes in favor, but failed to garner sufficient support and was not adopted, meaning it is dismissed from the proceedings; the consideration of the third item on the agenda is concluded.