By Months: Evelin Poolamets

The political stance is strongly opposed to the government’s plan to take calculated risks with the treaty concerning foreign prisoners, labeling it a reckless gamble. The position is value-based, stressing the principles of a civilized society and the necessity of taking responsibility. The speaker criticizes the government for actively promoting the growth of crime rather than its reduction. The political framework is based more on values and results than on pure politics.

The speaker’s focus rests on parliamentary procedural correctness and the behavioral norms of ministers, which indicates a rather performance-driven approach. This stance is a strong demand for accountability, stressing that in cases of improper conduct (insulting others), the minister should immediately relinquish the floor.

The speaker is in strong opposition to the government's policies, particularly concerning directives imported from the European Union (such as the CO2 tax and Rail Baltic) and the reduction of rural support funding. The political framework is value-based, stressing Estonian sovereignty, the preservation of rural areas, and the production of clean food, while labeling the opposing side's actions as "ideological experiments." The strong resistance to the Rail Baltic project is driven by financial uncertainty and associated budget cuts.

The political stance is firmly opposed to the government's green transition (especially the development of wind energy), highlighting its negative impact on local communities, public health, and national defense. Another core issue is the fierce criticism directed at the systemic failures and lack of accountability surrounding abuse cases in care homes. Their rhetoric is value-driven, focusing on safeguarding the rule of law and fundamental human rights. They also sharply criticize the decline of the Estonian economy and the erosion of its competitiveness.

The political position is strongly opposed to the government's green policies and tax increases, emphasizing that these measures are detrimental to the Estonian economy, rural areas, and national security. The speaker prioritizes the interests of the nation-state, energy security (oil shale), and the protection of the traditional social order against ideological pressure. The framing is heavily value-based and critical of the government’s actions, accusing it of serving ideology rather than the interests of the people. The main topics are opposition to the renewable energy bill and the harmfulness of tax hikes during an economic recession.

The speaker is vehemently opposed to the ideological agenda of the Reform Party-led government, focusing on the need to revitalize the economy and alleviate the tax burden. Key themes include ensuring energy security through dispatchable capacity (oil shale, nuclear power plant), opposing gender quotas and gender ideology, and protecting people from cybercrime and the health risks associated with wind farms. The political framework is highly critical, accusing the government of ideological experimentation and driving the Estonian economy into the "European bottom league."

The political focus is currently centered on demanding accountability for the state's administrative failures (Nordica) and opaque subsidy schemes (renewable energy). Furthermore, there is a strong emphasis on the urgent necessity of tackling the demographic crisis, which is framed as a constitutional duty. The speaker adopts a fiercely oppositional and value-driven stance, criticizing the government's activities as unjust and detrimental to the nation, and demanding political responsibility and resignations. The critique is primarily aimed at the incompetence and pattern of corrupt behavior demonstrated by the governments led by the Reform Party.

The political platform is strongly anti-government, focusing on the administration's inefficiency in economic management and its perceived moral decay. The most contentious issues are the defense of national self-determination (restricting voting rights exclusively to citizens) and criticism of the green transition, especially concerning the regulatory burden placed on wind energy developers and local municipalities. The critique is both policy-driven and value-based, emphasizing the decline in economic competitiveness and the government’s failure to act.

The politician is strongly opposed to the government's energy policy, particularly the subsidization of intermittent renewable energy (wind power), stressing its inherent instability and environmental costs. He urgently demands full transparency and substantiation regarding the representation expenses of high state officials (the Chancellor of Justice and the Prosecutor General), viewing the current system as undemocratic and an unfair use of taxpayer money. These positions are deeply rooted in policy and values, focusing on security of supply and honest governance.