Agenda Profile: Peeter Ernits

The political stance is strongly opposed to mere cosmetic legislative changes, demanding instead the implementation of direct presidential elections and heeding the will of the people. The speaker emphasizes the state's crisis of confidence (with government support currently at 14%) and warns against the shift from a democratic rule of law towards an arbitrary sovereign state. He demands improvements in the quality of the Riigikogu's work and public hearings for ministerial candidates. The political framework is primarily value-based (centered on public trust) and results-based (focused on the government's poor performance).

The speaker demonstrates expertise regarding constitutional reforms and the quality of legislation, referencing previous direct election initiatives (18 times) and proposals put forth by Jüri Raidla. He/She also exhibits knowledge concerning the rule of law and oversight issues, specifically mentioning super-databases, surveillance bills, and participation in a consultation among lawyers and judges regarding license plate recognition cameras. The speaker stresses the necessity of substantiating legal provisions more thoroughly to prevent undue delegation to the executive power.

The rhetorical style is forceful, critical, and passionate, employing emotional metaphors such as "the ground is burning underfoot" and "we are picking our nose here." The speaker sharply criticizes the activities of the Riigikogu, labeling it a "rubber stamp," lazy, and arrogant. The appeals are a blend of an emotional sense of crisis and logical procedural criticism (e.g., the necessity of giving substance to the legal sections).

The speaker recently attended a consultation (yesterday) involving lawyers, judges, and other specialists. The meeting focused on the status and lessons learned concerning automatic license plate recognition cameras. He points out that he was the only member of the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) who attended. He is actively participating in the current session, having taken the floor several times to stress the necessity of establishing clear priorities.

The main criticism is directed at the government and the coalition ("the long plan party"), who are accused of short-sightedness and losing the people’s trust (14% support). Procedural criticism is aimed at the Riigikogu as an institution that is lazy, arrogant, and produces shoddy work, excessively delegating to the executive power. He/She also criticizes the presentation of the draft bill as being supported by the entire Riigikogu, even though the signatures of representatives from two parties are missing.

The speaker critically questioned the bill's cross-parliamentary support, pointing out that the signatures of representatives from two parties (EKRE and the Centre Party) were missing. He referred to previous cooperation in supporting the direct election of the president (45 colleagues in 2021). He emphasized the need for greater discussion and debate in the legislative process.

The focus is clearly on national issues such as the procedure for electing the president, state reform, and the government's crisis of confidence. Internationally, the text refers to European Union countries, including Finland and Lithuania, where the president is elected directly by the people. There are no mentions of specific local or regional problems.

Not enough data

The speaker expresses strong concern regarding the restriction of civil liberties, criticizing surveillance bills and the creation of super-databases that are leading the country toward becoming an overreaching or preemptive state. He/She mentions the danger of criminalizing people's thoughts or videos they have watched (citing colleagues Vooglaid or Kiviberg, for example), measures which have fortunately been withdrawn.

The primary legislative focus is criticizing the cosmetic nature of the draft bill (684 SE) amending the Republic of Estonia President Election Act and supporting the initiative for direct presidential elections. Also crucial is improving the quality of legislation, requiring that sections be given better substance, and legalizing public hearings for ministerial candidates. He or she criticizes the rapid debate on the budget and the monologic legislative process.