By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The political stance is strongly anti-government, focusing on two main issues: the gender quota bill, which is viewed as a manifestation of totalitarian ideology, and the tax hikes, which are considered undemocratic and a breach of promises. Emphasis is placed on the principles of freedom and limiting state power, contrasting them with the first postulate of liberalism. The speaker demands that snap elections be held due to the undemocratic nature of the tax increases.

The political focus centers on the political accountability for the maritime incident (the tanker inspection) and the propriety of how the operation was executed. The speaker urgently insists that such serious operations must be pre-approved by the government (the Prime Minister or a relevant Minister), underscoring the necessity of a political decision. This stance is heavily oriented toward evaluating the government's performance and leadership (performance-driven).

The political position centers on strong opposition to the tax hikes introduced by the ruling coalition (the Reform Party and Eesti 200). These increases are viewed as a betrayal of the voters and a lack of mandate. The speaker urgently calls for snap elections to secure a democratic mandate for the proposed tax increases. The overall political framework is heavily focused on criticizing the government's actions and credibility, citing its low approval ratings (13–20%).

The political stance is highly critical of the government's performance, highlighting the weak execution of state functions in border regions and the failure to meet economic objectives (productivity, competitiveness). The critique is primarily results-oriented, demanding that the government acknowledge the facts concerning immigration and economic divergence. Political solutions are proposed to mitigate regional inequality through tax incentives.

The political position is strongly value-driven, focusing on the defense of the rule of law and constitutionality. The speaker categorically opposes the draft law, which violates religious freedom by demanding the severance of canonical ties, calling it a disgrace to the parliament. They also oppose joining the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), considering it a pointless exercise in image creation that fails to address real democratic problems. The emphasis on the principle that the end does not justify every means demonstrates strong opposition to political pragmatism that disregards the constitution.

The political focus is on protecting the principles of the rule of law, opposing the illegal actions of state authorities in the construction of a mass surveillance system (license plate recording). The speaker adopts a strong, value-driven stance, demanding accountability from the PPA (Police and Border Guard Board) and the Ministry of the Interior, and resisting the entrenchment of surveillance society practices. The issue raised is framed as a massive legal violation that must be followed by sanctions.

The political position centers on strong opposition to members of the Riigikogu (Parliament) serving on the Council for the Administration and Development of Courts (KHAN), emphasizing the crucial importance of the principle of the separation of powers. Criticism is directed at the appointment of coalition representatives, which is seen as an attempt by the government to maintain its control function over the judicial system. Furthermore, there is a demand for the judicial reform to be carried out holistically and systematically, rather than piecemeal, supporting a conceptually pure approach.

His political position is strongly value-driven, focusing on increasing national defense capability through the promotion of widespread gun ownership and trust in citizens. He sharply opposes "gender ideology," labeling it irrational, and criticizes the government's practice of ignoring existing law for ideological reasons. He also stresses the need to ensure that the prosecutor's office responds appropriately to illegal activity (the Pihlakodu case).

The political focus is on the principle of the rule of law and demanding strict adherence to the rules of good lawmaking. All government bills must include a constitutional analysis, the systematic absence of which is met with strong opposition. This stance is strongly procedural and value-based, emphasizing the realization of the principle of legality. Opposition is expressed to the position of the Minister of Justice, which suggests that the analysis can be conducted selectively if the infringement of rights does not appear intense.

The political position is strongly focused on defending the bill to lower excise duties and criticizing the simplified fiscal analyses presented by the opposing side. Emphasis is placed on the need for substantive engagement and evidence-based analyses in the legislative process, thereby calling into question the integrity of the Riigikogu’s procedures. The stance is heavily policy- and procedure-centric.

The political position is strongly opposed to the Prime Minister’s premature expression of readiness to send the Estonian Defence Forces to Ukraine, emphasizing responsibility and the need to avoid the risk of the country being drawn into war. This stance is firmly centered on constitutional adherence, demanding that decisions regarding foreign missions be made by the Riigikogu (Parliament), not the government. The speaker categorically rejects the derogatory term "self-preservation," replacing it instead with "elementary responsibility."

The speaker firmly advocates for the protection of the principle of the rule of law and constitutional guarantees, particularly the privilege against self-incrimination. They express concern regarding the draft legislation for transposing the ECN+ directive, noting that it leaves the constitutional compliance for legal entities ambiguous and is procedurally flawed. The political stance is strongly value-based, stressing the quality of law-making and adherence to the constitution. They view the government's decision to abandon the initial plan, which would have resulted in serious constitutional violations, as a positive development.