By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

The political position is one of strong opposition to the bill under discussion (likely the "super database"), which is considered extremely dangerous to the Estonian rule of law. The resistance targets both the substance of the law and the unprecedented speed of the legislative process (two readings per week). The focus is value-based criticism directed at the shoddy quality of the legislation and the organization of the Riigikogu's work.

The political focus is directed towards security risks and demanding an analysis of the consequences associated with legislative delays. He/She emphasizes the need to assess threats related to sexual deviants and drug trafficking if modern security measures (cameras) are not implemented. Furthermore, concerns are raised regarding digital security (voice imitation) and parliamentary administrative matters (spam emails concerning the torture of chickens). This position is heavily driven by risk analysis and procedural correctness.

The political stance heavily focuses on the international recognition and reputation of Estonia's e-voting model. The position is critical, questioning whether the model can achieve approval from OECD countries, or if it will remain associated with Venezuela and Russia. The framing is results-based, emphasizing the need to achieve international legitimacy.

Politically, the speaker pragmatically supports the imperfect draft Competition Law, viewing it as the best of bad options. However, he is in extremely strong opposition to the draft law concerning the Money Laundering Data Bureau (RAB), calling it "the most repulsive" and a path toward a totalitarian state. His position is strongly value-based, emphasizing the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights. He criticizes the government's actions as "embarrassing" and "ridiculous."

The political focus is heavily centered on the procedural inefficiency and delays in the legislative process (the "foot-dragging" and "stalling"). He sharply criticizes the government's inability to finalize draft legislation, particularly the Waste Act, which has been languishing for years. Furthermore, he questions the expediency of amending bills that are slated to be replaced by new legislation soon, framing his critique as a failure of effectiveness.

The speaker expresses strong opposition to the government's procedural methods, particularly the lack of budget transparency and the use of "steamroller" tactics. Their positions are strongly value-based, emphasizing constitutionality (referencing Section 22) and the responsible use of public funds during this "austerity regime." They sharply criticize the governments' failure to resolve the long-standing issue of the delayed bill, which has resulted in substantial fines.

The speaker heavily emphasizes the quality and accountability of legislation, criticizing the lack of measurable benefit derived from the reports presented by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He/She forcefully supports amendments aimed at ensuring the proper functioning of childcare and education laws, focusing on results-based policy formulation. The political focus is centered on correcting errors before they generate actual problems.

The speaker is in strong opposition to the government, sharply criticizing the Prime Minister's optimism and the government's actions, which have resulted in economic stagnation and a crisis of confidence. Their political position is strongly results-oriented, stressing that the country is facing a composite crisis (economic, demographic, security, and political crises) and that the current political landscape must be fundamentally disrupted and restarted from scratch to restore public trust. He highlights the government's laughably low approval rating, which clearly demonstrates a lack of confidence among the populace.

The political position is strongly critical of the government's actions, especially regarding the utopian promises of the green transition and renewable energy. He emphasizes that the political system ridicules the opposition's draft legislation, which actually channels the real concerns of the people. The political framework is a mix of value-based criticism (protecting the environment and the living environment) and results-based criticism (projects don't pan out, the ministry is powerless).

The political stance focuses strongly on supporting small-scale beekeepers and pensioners, opposing the Ministry of Rural Affairs' decision to exclude 77.6% of beekeepers from receiving subsidies. The speaker sharply criticizes the unfair distribution of these grants, which is based on an arbitrary 15-hive threshold, and challenges the argument that only large producers contribute to food security. This position is aimed squarely against bureaucratic injustice and emphasizes the necessity of supporting ordinary citizens.