By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

An oppositional stance characterized by strong critical reframing. The representative stresses that the draft legislation aimed at increasing fines and state fees is driven solely by budgetary considerations and lacks adequate analysis; they are firmly opposed to these increases and call upon the faction to reject the bills. They emphasize the need to consider moral and social responsibility, arguing that the expansion of taxes and penalties should not be used to fund the budget, but rather must take into account issues of poverty and accessibility faced by the populace. A factional, value- and policy-driven approach in pursuit of prospective change.

The primary political position is opposition to the car tax bill, emphasizing its conflict with EU law and the Constitution. We support the withdrawal of the bill and the review of the tax changes, arguing that, as a coalition measure, they are excessively burdensome and inequitable. Furthermore, we stress the protection of voters and democracy, and the need for accountability in the use of public money.

The opposition's position regarding the coalition's plan concerning mobile voting and the bundling of amendments. It emphasizes the protection of democracy, transparency, and trust, and criticizes the coalition's procedure as disproportionate and restrictive of democratic rights. It stresses that obstruction is a permissible tool in parliamentary work, and the coalition's move to try to limit the taking of recesses is unacceptable. The approach focuses on preserving values and procedural fairness, rather than merely on specific draft legislation.

A key issue is the funding of youth physical activities and the criticism directed at the funding policies of the government and the Ministry of Culture. Strong opposition has been voiced against cutting funding for school and recreational sports, emphasizing the need for transparency and adequate financing. The situation is interpreted as a politically motivated injustice, standing in stark contrast to the stated goal of promoting youth health.

He/She reviews the draft bill critically: the primary motive is revenue generation, not the improvement of traffic behavior. (The party) demands coordination with the ministry and an impact assessment to evaluate the reduction in misdemeanors and traffic violations. The position is characterized by moderate to strong opposition and is process-centric.

The speaker is vehemently opposed to the draft bill, emphasizing that its adoption would saddle the Competition Authority with a new punitive body and an administrative procedure fraught with constitutional dangers. He prioritizes supporting the economy and strengthening existing procedures during this time of business crisis, rather than creating parallel, wide-ranging penalty procedures. He describes the arguments drafted and presented as a political choice leading toward a “punishment state.” He consistently points out that the directive does not mandate the use of this new form and seeks to reject the bill outright/withdraw it during the first reading.

As a representative of the Center Party faction, he is strongly in opposition. He emphasizes that the car tax bill and the broader tax policy may conflict with European Union law and the constitution, and demands that they must be withdrawn. He also stresses that the state must avoid budget risks, costs associated with court decisions, and burdening taxpayers; focusing on the values of fairness, the rule of law, and fiscal responsibility.

As a representative of the Centre Party faction, strong opposition is expressed to the government’s plan concerning the regulation of the crypto market. He/She emphasizes that any changes must be accompanied by reasonable advance notice and impact analyses, and criticizes the short notification deadlines and excessive requirements that are not mandated by the regulation itself. He/She links this objective to protecting the stability of investments and entrepreneurship, and is prepared to withdraw the draft bill or significantly rephrase it. The ultimate goal is to maintain the competitiveness of Estonian crypto asset operations and avoid excessive bureaucracy.

The Center Party faction emphasizes the protection of the rights of large families and people with disabilities, and strongly opposes the car tax unless specific exemptions are included. Their position is clearly critical regarding the threat of rising poverty resulting from the cumulative effect of tax hikes, and they demand the establishment of exemptions or supplementary benefits. Furthermore, they stress the importance of legal certainty and the fulfillment of constitutional duties, viewing the government's actions as a failure to adhere to the coalition agreement and its promises, thereby causing budgetary problems.

The speaker focuses on raising teachers' salaries and the government's inaction in addressing this issue; they are strongly critical of the coalition and the ministers, highlighting resource-wasting management and the failure to pay wages. The position appears to be policy- and performance-based, with the non-fulfillment of promises and the necessity of taking responsibility being the central themes.

The opposition holds a strong position regarding the government's tax policy, particularly against the sugar tax. It emphasizes that social policy must be funded by taxes and proposes alternative tax amendments (a bank tax, a digital tax, and a large corporate tax). Focusing on the financing of children's health and social programs, and utilizing critical assessment alongside testable alternatives, this approach may demonstrate a policy-driven methodology.

The representative of the Centre Party faction opposes the car tax and clearly asserts that it conflicts with European Union law and the constitution. He stresses that the last moment for withdrawing the bill is critical and firmly advocates for the draft legislation not to advance through the Riigikogu. The focus is on value-based and legal frameworks, rather than the traditional expansion of taxation.

The oppositional, value- and principle-based approach focuses on protecting the rights and legal certainty of large families. It criticizes the government's tax policy (especially the car tax and sugar tax), which it considers primarily a result of filling budget deficits and pre-election political maneuvering. It supports financing measures that would direct resources toward families and child support programs, and favors alternative tax policies (such as a tax on banks' excess profits or a digital tax) as a broader, better-targeted solution. This stance is allegedly aimed at protecting constitutional and legal certainty principles, while simultaneously criticizing the government for being fiscally repressive and acting purely for the sake of election results.