By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

The political stance is fiercely oppositional, focusing heavily on criticizing the quality of the work done by the government and the Riigikogu. The speaker objects to the submission of draft legislation which, in their view, is crude, premature, and lacks a substantive impact assessment. Furthermore, the government's actions are criticized as merely being a "rubber stamp" during discussions on international relations, underscoring the necessity for genuine, substantive debate.

The political position supports the development of the digital state and the gigabit infrastructure regulation, but is critical of the inadequate and unclear domestic implementation of this specific bill within Estonia. The adoption of the Name Law is considered essential to avoid a 120 million euro EU fine, which demonstrates the framing of legislation through external pressure. The speaker criticizes the government's political-technological approach of "letting bills die" (for example, the Children's Day bill).

The political position is strongly oppositional, accusing the government (Michal, Ligi) of driving the country into the "bottom league" and poor governance. Key issues include government incompetence, social justice (concerns of heterosexuals, making ends meet), and the necessity of judicial reform. The political framework is primarily value-based and highly critical of the government's actions and effectiveness. A question is also being posed to the acting prime minister regarding the assumption of real power, citing the necessity of a long-term plan.

They strongly support the construction of the Tartu Grand Hall and deem it necessary to revise Estonia's tax system, which has remained unchanged for 30 years. Criticism is aimed at the shift toward a "preventive state" model, accusing the opposition of political inconsistency and supporting unconstitutional legislative drafts. The political framework is a blend of policy-driven and values-based critique, highlighting the societal perception of justice and expediency.

The most prominent issue is the high cost of food and the government's opposition to reducing the value-added tax (VAT). The speaker is strongly against the government's policy of keeping food prices high, criticizing it as both demeaning to the public and utterly unreasonable. This position is heavily outcome-based, focusing specifically on the negative impact resulting from the government's inaction.

The political position is strongly oppositional regarding the priorities of both the government and the European Commission. The speaker demands fundamental reforms, such as direct presidential elections, and criticizes the government's actions as mere "cosmetics" at a time when "the ground is burning under our feet." He is strongly opposed to Baroness von der Leyen's plan, which would cut funding for agriculture and regional development, stressing the critical importance of food security. The criticism is primarily value-based and performance-based, highlighting the public's lack of trust in the government (14%).

The political position is strongly oppositional and critical of the government's actions, focusing primarily on the government’s lack of precision and its choice of priorities. The speaker emphasizes the necessity of prioritizing the social and economic welfare of the Estonian people (specifically, lowering the VAT on foodstuffs) over foreign aid. The actions of government ministers are characterized as a "syndrome of self-overestimation," which results in significant budgetary errors (for instance, the 6.5 million euros allocated for the transition to Estonian-language instruction).

The political stance is strongly oppositional, centering on the criticism of the government’s priorities and activities. The most pressing issues include the failure to lower the VAT on foodstuffs, the disregard for the concerns of people with disabilities, and the shelving of crucial draft legislation (such as the VAT bill and the disability tax bill). Criticism is aimed both at political values (social neglect) and at the inefficiency of government operations and ambiguous lawmaking.

The speaker strongly opposes bureaucratic complexity and political graphomania, criticizing the 900-page material presented by the minister as "crap." Their political stance targets the absurdity of the state's activity-based approach and the sheer volume of meaningless metrics, stressing the necessity of simplicity and common sense. This is fundamentally results-oriented criticism, focusing on government inefficiency and the wasting of resources.

A strong opposition to the political activities and procedural methods of the ruling coalition. It focuses on criticizing the government's use of steamroller tactics, accusing them of repeatedly disregarding the constitution and public opinion. Regarding foreign policy, it supports the defense of Ukraine, proposing the idea of establishing an Estonian-Ukrainian division, and remains critical of the Swedish prison cooperation agreement (the Tidö Deal).