Session Profile: Peeter Ernits

The focus is on criticism of the government's actions, particularly concerning rural affairs and cultural policy. He sharply criticizes the unjust implementation of austerity measures, which favors large players (such as beekeepers' subsidies), as well as the double standards employed in relations with Russia (intensive gas trade versus aggressive rhetoric). His political stance is strongly value-based, stressing justice and the critical importance of the state's memory institutions. Furthermore, he criticizes the coalition's approach to rural issues, specifically their attempt to postpone the Minister of Agriculture's address until a time of low visibility (the 'dark time').

The text demonstrates authority in the fields of cultural heritage and museum management, referencing their prior experience as the director of a central museum while simultaneously criticizing the ministry's priorities. They possess specific knowledge concerning rural affairs and agriculture, addressing in detail the limits on subsidies for beekeepers and the issues related to RMK's (State Forest Management Centre) plant cultivation. Furthermore, they are well-versed in the working procedures of the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) and the technical substance of draft legislation.

The style is often confrontational and critical, employing emotional and figurative comparisons (Big Peter and Little Peter, mass murder, society's distorting mirror). He/She uses anecdotal and personal observations (visits to border checkpoints, the Palamuse fair) to illustrate the arguments. The tone is frequently concerned and urgent, particularly when addressing the destruction of state assets or injustice.

He/She actively submits interpellations, often covering multiple topics during a single session. He/She mentions taking personal trips on weekends (to the Luhamaa/Koidula border checkpoints, the Iisaku plant nursery, and the Palamuse fair) to gather information and intervene in issues. He/She demonstrates a rapid response to crises, such as the Iisaku plant nursery incident.

The criticism is primarily aimed at Prime Minister Kristen Michal and the ruling coalition, accusing them of unfairness, double standards, and neglecting rural areas. The critic criticizes the policies and rhetoric of ministers (Terras, Pevkur, Purga) and specifically faults the Reform Party for the timing of the agriculture minister's address. The criticism is intense, going so far as to accuse the government of feeding Putin's war machine.

It demonstrates a readiness and capacity for quick and effective cooperation, citing the positive example of communication with RMK CEO Mikk Marran and Minister Andres Sutt, which resulted in the Iisaku nursery problem being resolved over the course of a single weekend. This clearly indicates a preference for direct and rapid problem-solving.

A strong focus on rural and regional issues, particularly in the fields of agriculture (beekeepers, disease/pestilence) and forestry (the Iisaku nursery). It mentions specific locations and communities, such as Viljandi, Luhamaa, Koidula, and Palamuse, emphasizing the concerns of rural areas.

Opposes austerity policies that favor large producers over small ones, emphasizing the importance of small beekeepers (77.6% of all beekeepers). It criticizes the intensive LNG business with Russia, considering it to be feeding Putin's war machine, although it concedes that the gas is cheap. It supports the economic stability of farmers and rural life.

A strong position defending culture and historical memory, criticizing the marginalization of the Ministry of Culture and the overemphasis on political correctness (specifically referencing the primer exhibition). The speaker criticizes historical distortion that excludes important neighboring countries (Finland, Sweden, Russia) while adding irrelevant ones (Ukraine) in the name of political correctness. The speaker also raises concerns regarding the disproportionate influence of the media (Eesti Ekspress) on state governance.

It focuses on improving the workflow of the Riigikogu by proposing amendments to the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act to ensure the pertinence of ministerial replies. It also addresses the scheduling and prioritization of draft legislation, noting that the Basic Education Act initiated by the Rural Affairs Committee is merely a technical correction of errors.