By Months: Lauri Laats

The Center Party faction is critical of the government's tax policy, emphasizing that the sharp rise in consumption taxes primarily burdens low and middle-income people and harms the economy. It intervenes in energy issues, stressing the stability of the energy market, the continuation of oil shale usage, and the securing of European derogations for the energy sector. It also emphasizes the principles of transparency and compliance regarding parliamentary expenses (Riigikogu expenses) and warned the government by speaking of "taxes of incompetence." It rather defends a modular, revenue-directing approach to created payment solutions than general tax increases.

The representative of the Centre Party faction focuses on defending regional issues and ensuring the viability of rural areas, emphasizing that the loss of services and increased taxation pull rural regions into deep dependency. He/She is critical of the government's regional policy and stresses that regional inequality and service deficits must be resolved, not exacerbated; his/her tone is strongly critical, yet he/she calls for an honest, transparent, and cooperation-based approach. He/She highlights the necessity of securing regional development and services and is ready for cooperation between the coalition and the opposition, including through legislative proposals and investigative committees. The main priorities are regional policy, the preservation of services in rural areas, and a transparent budget.

Representatives of the Centre Party faction emphasize regional and agricultural priorities, fighting for the preservation of services in the counties and the sustainability of food production. They are critical of the government's tax policy and prefer generating broader tax revenue through a bank tax, rather than significantly increasing consumption taxes. They also stress the need for transparency, a consistent budget, and regional investments; they do not rule out cooperation, but are therefore strongly in opposition to the coalition, which has demonstrated urgent and "omnibus bill"-style measures. Legislative policy is primarily viewed through the lens of public welfare (livelihood, regional development), and they have been ready to offer alternatives (e.g., the bank tax).

Representing the Centre Party, the speaker highlights policies aimed at the economy and family welfare that have a direct retail impact, but stands against the implementation of extensive tax increases, emphasizing regional inequality as the greatest problem. Lowering the VAT on food to 5% is seen as having a significant social and economic benefit. At the same time, there is a warning against extreme green transition steps that could potentially harm the economy. The parliamentary group places strong emphasis on protecting entrepreneurship and criticizes the inefficiency of bureaucratic consultation rounds, viewing some government actions as highly hostile to business practices. The focus is directed toward finding solutions to these problems, underscoring the need to increase regional influence and foster a greater sense of regional fairness.

The speaker holds a position of strong opposition regarding the car tax, emphasizing that the tax will not improve people's well-being and may be unconstitutional. Reference is made to the importance of the presidential veto and the necessity of constitutional review, stating that the debate must be concluded before the law enters into force. They are prepared to submit amendments and seek alternative ways to balance the budget, but they do not see the implementation of the car tax as a solution.

As a representative of the Estonian Centre Party's parliamentary group, the primary stance is oppositional to the coalition: criticizing the government's actions and emphasizing the necessity of snap elections. On the issue of Georgia, the position is quite pragmatic and critical: the handling of the draft bill and foreign policy must proceed calmly, thoroughly, and with the involvement of allies and diplomats, not hastily. The political rhetoric is strongly geared toward confrontation and the defense of principles, and the government's policy is characterized by being labeled as "lying" and "foul play." The policy is framed as a question of government responsibility and accountability, where the coalition must take steps toward greater responsibility and an inclusive decision-making process.

Representing the Centre Party faction, the focus remains primarily on resolving economic and social issues. However, as the opposition, our direction is sharply critical of the government's tax policy. We are highlighting the overall burden imposed by consumption taxes and excise duties, along with the controversial nature of the sugar tax. As alternatives, we propose a temporary solidarity bank tax and putting an end to tax erosion. Furthermore, we stress the necessity of alleviating poverty and strengthening both subsistence benefits and funding for extracurricular activities. There is a strong reflection of the emphasis placed on protecting the economic network and individual well-being, coupled with cognitive skepticism regarding the government's ability to deliver on its promises.

The opposition maintains its stance on issues discussed in the Riigikogu; it is critical of the government's economic policy and calls for swift, agile solutions. It supports terminating the universal service (electricity/energy) and believes that state support mechanisms should be restructured, for instance, by synchronizing them with market prices and providing subsidies where necessary. The opposition strongly opposes major tax increases (including the motor vehicle tax) and emphasizes alternative financing mechanisms (such as a bank tax). Furthermore, it opposes the continuation of income tax reform if it proves detrimental to the economy. While factional cooperation is necessary, the opposition remains critical of decisions made by the coalition, focusing primarily on specific economic and energy policy matters.

Strong opposition to the government's tax policy; stresses the negative impact of the rising cost of living on the poor and middle-income earners, and underscores the necessity of reviewing tax funding structures. It highlights the bank tax and specific tax levies as alternatives, while remaining critical of new taxes, such as consumption taxes. Furthermore, it condemns the proposed car tax and emphasizes its central role in safeguarding the economy and the populace's financial well-being.

The core focus concentrates on the cost of living, managing price increases, and a concise discussion of the economic crisis. It is critical of the government's economic and regional policies, and emphasizes the importance of impact assessments and the effects experienced by people. In certain areas, a proactive desire emerges to quickly and purposefully change tax policy (e.g., opposing the car tax, supporting the bank tax) and direct resources toward solving problems, but at the same time, there is also a wish to accelerate the termination of the universal service as a method for reducing costs.

The issue of the nuclear power plant is a critically important decision that demands broad-based discussion and debate. The speaker neither clearly supports nor objects to the proposal, instead awaiting substantive answers from the government and the continuation of the discussion in light of new information. He/She stresses the necessity of involving local municipalities, communities, and both local and international experts. This position underscores the importance of oversight, transparency, and cooperation, rather than haste.