By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The political focus is directed toward nature conservation and the management of wild animal populations (wolves, bears, squirrels). The speaker expresses concern about the potential damage the animals might inflict (using the phrase "to do harm/evil") and inquires about the population being under control, which suggests a need to intervene or monitor the situation.

The political position is strongly opposed to the government's energy policy, particularly regarding offshore wind farms and the associated expensive grid development. The main emphasis is placed on the economic inefficiency of the policy and the necessity for alternative, significantly cheaper onshore solutions. The speaker criticizes the government's approach as ideological (a "the end justifies the means" policy) and wasteful, which will lead to the loss of billions.

The political focus centers on defending the nation-state and sovereignty, strongly opposing any constitutional expansion of voting rights for non-citizens. This stance is deeply value-based, stressing the necessity of being "masters in our own land" and ensuring the preservation of the Estonian language and culture in what is described as a fading state. The speaker emphasizes that voting must be guided by personal convictions and conscience.

The political position is strongly oppositional, focusing on criticizing the government’s priorities and budgetary decisions which are detrimental to family livelihoods and sports funding. The speaker emphasizes that the government makes daily decisions that drain money from the pockets of families and businesses, and deems the discussion about sports meaningless when major energy decisions are being made concurrently. The viewpoint is strongly value-based and results-oriented, directly linking sports performance (the lack of medals) to the government's funding policy.

The political focus is centered on ensuring national defense and the protection of critical infrastructure, particularly offshore wind farms. The speaker is demanding specific calculations and an assessment of resource requirements, which signals a robust policy- and results-driven approach. The stance taken is probing and calls for detailed planning from the government.

The most prominent issue is energy policy, where the speaker is strongly opposed to subsidizing more expensive offshore wind farms, preferring onshore wind farms as a cheaper and sufficient alternative. The political stance is highly critical of the government's fiscal policy, linking expensive energy projects to recent tax hikes, which are justified by national defense needs. The position is strongly policy- and results-driven, emphasizing the principles of a market economy and cost-effectiveness.

The political position is strongly critical of the government’s proposals, demanding explanations regarding the benefits of merging educational institutions and the economic logic behind expensive energy projects. Key emphases are placed on guaranteeing the state's financial obligations (the education agreement) and conducting a cost-benefit analysis (for offshore wind farms). The overall approach is clearly policy- and results-based, calling into question the government’s claims regarding savings and cost reduction.

The most crucial topic is energy policy and infrastructure development, where the speaker calls for market-based solutions. The speaker strongly opposes opaque and unjustified decisions and stresses that energy options, including nuclear power, must be supported by the market situation. The political framework is explicitly policy- and market-driven, emphasizing a responsible approach to investments.

The political focus is on energy policy, where strong opposition is being voiced against the government’s plans to build extremely expensive, subsidized offshore wind farms and nuclear power plants. The speaker emphasizes maximizing the potential of onshore wind and solar energy and points to the negative impact of CO2 fees on the price of oil shale energy. The stance is heavily based on policy and cost-effectiveness, calling the government's planning into question.

The political stance is fiercely opposed to the European Union's current climate and energy policy, which is dubbed "self-destructive green lunacy." The primary focus is on the role of foreign policy in influencing the EU establishment to change this unsustainable and competition-stifling energy policy. This position is strongly policy-based, centered on preventing economic collapse.

The political stance is strongly critical of the government’s economic performance, highlighting Estonia’s economic recession in contrast to Lithuania’s economic growth. Emphasis is placed on the necessity of clarifying the specific details of bank taxation and the government’s assertions regarding the 26% income tax. The overall approach is clearly results-oriented and challenging.