By Plenary Sessions: Anti Poolamets

The political stance is vehemently opposed to the government's tax increases, stressing a complete absence of a mandate and voter confidence, given that coalition support is currently below 20%. The primary focus is on the crisis of government legitimacy, which they argue stems from alleged election manipulation and unfair practices (such as e-voting irregularities and the Prigozhin scandal). The speaker connects these unfair elections to an unjust judicial system and subsequent economic stagnation.

The most salient issue is Estonia's economic lag behind Latvia and Lithuania, particularly concerning productivity. The speaker strongly opposes the government's policies, accusing them of causing the drop in productivity and relying on cheap labor. The criticism targets the inconsistency of the government's actions and its poor performance, especially regarding the Green Transition regulations.

The political stance is fiercely oppositional and value-driven, accusing the government of completely forfeiting the trust of the electorate and pursuing poor policies for which it lacks a mandate. The speaker demands the government's resignation and sharply criticizes the decline of the education system and instances of corruption (the Lehtme and Kersna cases). The primary focus is the critique of the nation's political culture and moral state.

The political stance is fiercely opposed to quotas and socialist concepts regarding private sector regulation, labeling them as ideological fantasies. Furthermore, skepticism is voiced concerning the CO2 ideology and the green transition, with emphasis placed on the energy deficit and the security situation of the countries bordering the East. The political framework is distinctly value-driven, defending meritocracy and the autonomy of the business sector against state intervention.

The speaker voiced serious concerns regarding the security of Estonia’s energy system, highlighting the underinvestment in critical infrastructure and the obsolescence of backup systems. This stance is results-oriented, criticizing a situation where investments have been deferred until 2027 or 2028 due to constraints on borrowing capacity. The primary focus is on the necessity of preventing a severe energy crisis, referencing the examples set by Spain and Portugal.

The speaker strongly opposes the government's policies, particularly regarding social genders and name changes, deeming them madness that mocks common sense. Furthermore, they reject the "super tax" imposed by Brussels under the pretext of CO2, viewing it as a hijacking of member states' taxation rights. The political position is primarily value-based and focuses on protecting national sovereignty and common sense.

The political position focuses sharply on the issue of accountability failure within the Estonian justice system and in high-profile cases. The speaker urgently demands accountability for the Danske money laundering scandal, the Pihlakodu sexual offenses, and Lehtme's ethical violations. Their approach is strongly critical of the actions taken by the government and the Prosecutor's Office, and is aimed at improving the system's actual performance.

The speaker is vehemently opposed to the uncontrolled integration of weather-dependent renewable energy—or "intermittent power"—into the electricity grid, citing catastrophic blackouts in Spain and Portugal. He supports dispatchable generation capacities (fossil fuels, biomass, storage) and stresses the importance of measures that support economic stability, such as lowering excise duties. His positions are strongly policy- and value-driven, focusing on natural laws and grid safety.

The speaker focuses heavily on the quality of democracy and issues of governance, expressing concern regarding the competence of elected politicians (members of the Parliament and the government). He contrasts the civil servants who uphold the quality of the state with political "sheep," stressing that democratic sentiments endanger the stability of the state. The viewpoint is strongly critical and results-oriented, focusing on evaluating the government's performance.

The central theme is the fight against bureaucracy and ideological control, particularly in relation to EU directives. The speaker is strongly opposed to the whistleblowers protection act, labeling it the "snitching law," and also criticizes the mandatory corporate sustainability reporting. The political framework is strongly value-based, emphasizing historical threats and the restriction of freedom. The stance remains highly oppositional, as EKRE neither supported the law previously nor supports it now.