By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

The political position is strongly opposed to the government's energy policy, particularly regarding the rapid construction of onshore and offshore wind farms, which are viewed as environmental pollution and a scheme for wealth redistribution through subsidies. This stance is grounded in values (the protection of nature and people) and focused on results, criticizing the government's ethical failures and its disregard for the public. The speaker also references previous political history, criticizing the actions of the EKRE parliamentary group during Martin Helme's tenure as Minister of Finance.

The speaker supports a specific international convention (an optional protocol) but sharply criticizes the actions of the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament), labeling them as displacement activity and a shift in focus. The core political stance is opposition to the government’s actions, stressing that the state has abandoned a large segment of the Estonian population and is draining them economically. He/She also sharply criticizes military posturing, contrasting Estonia's behavior with Finland's sensible approach. The position is strongly results-oriented and values-driven, focusing on the welfare of the people.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of parliamentary inquiries (Riigikogu questions) and sharply criticizes the attitude of the government (the Minister in question), suspecting that the entire exercise is merely a way of "letting off steam." The specific political focus is the non-transparency and unfairness of the funding decisions made by the Cultural Endowment (Kultuurkapital), citing the repeated rejection of support for the Arnold Rüütel film as a prime example. The political framework is procedural and outcome-oriented, demanding accountability and adherence to established norms.

The political focus is centered on the reliability and procedures of e-voting. The speaker expresses concern, highlighting the "peculiarity" of the similarities observed between the e-voting systems in Estonia and Russia. The stance taken is moderately critical, emphasizing the need for an international assessment (OSCE).

The political position is strongly critical of the government's actions, particularly regarding the plans for achieving green goals (100% renewable energy) and distributing large subsidies (2.6 billion). The criticism centers on the uncertainty of the measures, the absence of impact assessments, and the scuttling of previous plans. The focus is on calling into question the government's performance and competence.

The political position is strongly anti-government, accusing it of oppressing the populace and acting as an enemy, which suggests an occupation regime. The primary focus is on the negative impact of the government's actions on public opinion, supported by a sociological survey. The framework is primarily results-oriented and values-based, centering on the government's legitimacy.

The political focus is sharply directed at the 2.6 billion euro offshore wind farm project, which is being treated as a rushed and dubious reallocation of wealth. The speaker supports the current government’s decision to withdraw the plan, viewing it as the more sensible course of action, but demands explanations regarding the background of the previous decision. The stance is strongly opposed to corruption suspicions and emphasizes fiscal responsibility.

The speaker's political position is strongly procedural and value-driven, focusing on the fairness of legislation towards the public and entrepreneurs. He sharply criticizes the Riigikogu’s inability to prevent "foolish decisions" and emphasizes the need for adequate impact assessments and respect for the boundaries of the legal framework. The political framework is highly confrontational, labeling the government and parliamentary coalition as "enemies of the people" and "exploiters."

The speaker is in strong opposition to the government's actions, criticizing the "death sentences" the coalition has passed on draft legislation and stressing the necessity of a sober discussion regarding crucial issues. The political focus centers on the government's activities and spending (for instance, 70,000 euros during a difficult period), as well as opposing the proposed car tax. Their stance is strongly results-oriented and values-driven, accusing the government of irresponsible decision-making.

The speaker expresses strong opposition to the government’s priorities, viewing the debate over the European Union directive as a mere distraction. His criticism is primarily outcome-based, highlighting the catastrophic state of the Estonian economy and the severe hardship faced by the populace. He demands that the focus be shifted to the nation’s pressing issues, rather than the transposition of directives.

The political position is strongly value-based, emphasizing unwavering loyalty to the Republic of Estonia and its constitutional order. Specific political themes or directions are not evident from the speech; the focus is on commencing the fulfillment of official duties.