By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The political stance is firmly focused on the swift implementation of stripping third-country nationals of their voting rights, highlighting the security and time-sensitive nature of this issue. The speaker criticizes the government (Eesti 200, Reform Party, Social Democrats) for its inaction, despite the topic being included in the coalition agreement. Furthermore, they demand a short, impactful plan to boost the economy, rather than a long-term one.

The political position is strongly opposed to the government's policies, particularly in the areas of health and family benefits. The speaker criticizes the contradictory approach: on the one hand, a sugar tax is being planned, but on the other, support for extracurricular activities for large families—which is directly aimed at promoting physical activity—is being eliminated. This position is clearly policy- and results-driven, casting doubt on the logic behind the government's actions.

The political position heavily focuses on criticizing the actions of the legal system and investigative institutions. The speaker emphasizes the unequal approach taken in politically sensitive criminal cases, citing the examples of Tõnis Mölder and Johanna-Maria Lehtme. This stance is strongly critical, demanding answers about procedural disparities, which suggests a critique of the system based both on its performance-driven nature and its lack of fairness.

The political stance is deeply value-driven, centered on the survival of the nation and the catastrophic decline in the birth rate. The speaker takes a stand against the view that prioritizes external peace, asserting that the extinction of the nation is tantamount to waging war against one's own people. This issue is framed as an existential and critical priority.

The political focus is currently directed at the functionality and transparency of the justice system, criticizing the inefficiency of the Prosecutor’s Office (e.g., the Kajar Lember saga) and selective investigation (e.g., the Slava Ukraini case). Strong suspicions have been raised regarding the motives behind the Minister of Justice’s intervention and the request for the Prosecutor General’s resignation, demanding clarification on the meaning of "political credit of trust." This constitutes highly performance-driven criticism aimed squarely at the enforcement structures.

The politician voices strong criticism of the government's activities, focusing on two primary issues: state fiscal discipline (specifically, the rising costs of cultural projects and avoiding additional projects) and the demographic demise of the nation and the state. His positions are both results-oriented (budget management) and value-based, stressing the constitutional obligation to preserve the nation, as laid out in the preamble of the constitution. He opposes initiating new projects if doing so jeopardizes the completion of nationally important objects that are already scheduled.

The political stance is highly critical of the government's actions, particularly regarding political patronage, raising the question of whether those who switch parties are being rewarded with supervisory board positions. Furthermore, they oppose costly and ineffective green policies, citing the biofuel saga and the subsidization of offshore wind farms as key examples. The central focus is directed toward criticizing the inefficiency and lack of transparency inherent in the government's operations.

The political focus is heavily centered on redistributing the banks' windfall profits caused by the rise in Euribor. The speaker strongly objects to banks retaining profits generated by an instrument independent of their control. They propose an alternative funding source to cover national defense and teachers' salaries. This stance is highly policy-driven, emphasizing fiscal fairness and criticizing the government's performance.