By Plenary Sessions: Mart Helme

There is not enough data.

Not enough data.

The pattern of action involves active and repeated participation in the debate during the plenary session, presenting lengthy explanations and raising questions regarding the constitutionality of e-elections. The action culminated in a political protest, where the EKRE faction walked out of the session, protesting the arbitrary actions of the presidium and the coalition.

There is too little data.

The speaker actively participates in the plenary session of the Riigikogu during the debate on answering interpellations, utilizing this platform to sharply criticize the government. Information regarding the frequency, rhythm, or scheduling of other activities is unavailable.

The speaker is active in the Riigikogu plenary sessions, asking questions and participating in debates, citing their knowledge of the work of the Culture Committee. This pattern of activity indicates a focus on internal political confrontation within the Riigikogu and the criticism of procedures.

The speaker actively participates in the plenary session by posing short follow-up questions and critically noting the voting results for the purposes of the minutes. Data regarding the frequency of longer-term appearances or other activities is unavailable.

The records indicate active participation in the plenary session held on April 3, 2024, during which several questions and procedural inquiries were submitted. The pattern of activity centers on requesting clarification concerning specific issues and institutions (the Ministry of Justice and the PPA [Police and Border Guard Board]).

The speaker is actively participating in the Riigikogu (Parliament) Q&A session, posing repetitive questions and making procedural remarks regarding the respondent staying on topic. Mention is made of a bill introduced by their party two weeks ago aimed at revoking the voting rights of third-country nationals.

The speaker is highly active during the Riigikogu plenary session, repeatedly posing questions and making remarks to both the Prime Minister and the relevant minister during interpellations and the information hour. This pattern demonstrates intensive involvement in opposition scrutiny, demanding specific facts and substance in the responses. Furthermore, the speaker uses the opportunity for personal defense, responding to accusations concerning their patriotism.