Session Profile: Lauri Laats

The core political stance is critical of rushed lawmaking, placing a strong emphasis on constitutionality, legal certainty, and transparency. He/She highlights issues in the adoption of laws, specifically the lack of impact analysis and clear comprehensibility, viewing these as fundamentally critical flaws. The position is strongly oppositional and procedural, demanding thorough scrutiny and accountability in the interest of the public. He/She stresses that legislation must be both value-driven and results-oriented, focusing attention on high-quality lawmaking that moves the country forward, rather than merely fast-tracking draft bills.

Demonstrates knowledge of the importance of constitutionality, legal certainty, and proportionality, as well as the quality of lawmaking. Refers to the role of the Chancellor of Justice and impact analyses, the necessity of explanatory memoranda and approvals, and uses field-specific terms such as impact assessment and ongoing analysis. Relies on the protection of fundamental rights and the principles of democracy as the basis for evaluating decisions related to regulatory convenience.

Critical, yet constructive and grounded in facts; it utilizes specific examples (the car tax, the lack of clarity in the budget, the absence of impact analyses) and references institutional oversight mechanisms. The language is characterized by formality and the clear presentation of reasoning, which helps to advance arguments rationally. The text is primarily analytical and fact-based, rather than emotional.

It indicates that ongoing communication and criticism persist due to the rapid pace of the Riigikogu’s work and the quality of draft legislation. It mentions practices concerning draft bills implemented since 2023 and stresses the necessity of impact assessments. It emphasizes increasing public debate and transparency, as well as utilizing inclusion systems as standard practice, but specific intentions for the period have not been detailed.

Directly oppositional; criticism is aimed at the government and the coalition regarding the rushing of laws and draft legislation that lacks adequate impact analysis and clarity. The intensity is high; it is emphasized that the adopted laws may be flawed and that the observations of the Chancellor of Justice and the Auditor General are crucial. Opportunities for compromise conditionally exist, but the need for reform and better oversight is stressed.

He/She spoke about the importance of inclusion and cooperation: stakeholders, experts, civil society organizations, and coordination processes must be involved, and impact analyses must be conducted. This demonstrates a readiness to change the culture, fostering collaboration with various parties, and challenging the power structure that allows decisions directed solely at one faction without the necessity of broader consultation. It acknowledges that cooperation is vital between both the opposition and the coalition, and emphasizes the value of decision-based inclusion.

Not enough data

Concerning economic policy, it emphasizes the importance of evaluation criteria and impact analyses before implementing tax hikes or other financial decisions. It strongly opposes significant increases to car tax, income tax, and VAT without appropriate analysis, highlighting the negative effects these changes would have on people's ability to cope financially. It calls for forecasts and short-term and long-term scenarios, developed through analysis involving the private sector, in order to prevent instability and adverse economic effects.

It stands primarily for the protection of strong constitutional rights and democracy. It emphasizes legal certainty, transparency, and public involvement as fundamental social principles; and indicates that the restriction of fundamental rights must be based on a constitutional foundation. It reviews legislation aimed at ensuring social security and citizen welfare, and is prepared to eliminate practices that diminish public trust in state institutions.

When the quality of legislation is the priority, it underscores the importance of impact assessments, explanatory memoranda, clearances, the involvement of interest groups, and transparency. The current decision-making process is criticized for lacking substantive analysis; it stresses the necessity of considering the observations made by the Chancellor of Justice and the National Audit Office, and of improving overall transparency. The main focus is institutional reform aimed at enhancing the clarity, comprehensibility, and proportionality of laws.