By Agendas: Valdo Randpere

The political focus is on the structural imbalance of the Estonian economy and the concentration of GDP in the Tallinn and Harju County regions. The core question addresses whether this concentration is an advantage or a disadvantage for the country, highlighting the necessity of regional balance. The political framework is primarily policy- and solution-driven, seeking measures to revitalize economic activity outside the capital.

The political stance centers on maximizing the transfer of the Bank of Estonia's profit into the state budget. This position is strongly linked to the nation's challenging times and the necessity of defense expenditures, directly questioning whether the bank is prepared to offer financial support to the state. The stance is clearly results-oriented and underscores the priority of funding national defense.

The political position centers heavily on procedural correctness and the supremacy of the text of the law over commentary. The speaker adopts a strong and principled position that commentary holds no legal force whatsoever, and reliance upon it is erroneous. He demands the rectification of an incorrect decision made by the session department or the board in order to avoid unnecessary legal contention.

The most salient issue is the fight against fraud, where the speaker expresses strong opposition to the creation of a new national action plan. The stance is strongly value-based, emphasizing individual responsibility and warning against the state adopting an overly "nanny" role. He argues that the national campaign is an "empty document" and "ideological self-promotion," since existing institutions are already addressing the problem. The political objective is to avoid extra bureaucracy that contributes nothing of value to the matter.

The political stance is highly supportive of adopting the protocol addressing offenses committed on board aircraft, underscoring the necessity of ensuring both aviation security and proper conduct. The discussion is policy-focused, highlighting the merits of the draft legislation and its expected consensual approval. The substance of the draft bill is directed toward reinforcing standards of conduct and flight safety.

The political position strongly supports accession to the Amendment Protocol to the Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (587 SE). This position is aimed at filling a legal loophole to ensure that Estonian citizens are held accountable for disturbances committed on board an aircraft. The context is policy and security-based, emphasizing that accession will put an end to previous impunity.

The political stance centers on challenging the narrative surrounding the positive impacts of VAT reduction across European nations, citing the Swedish example where prices increased and reversing the measure proved unpopular. This position is critical and focused on policy effectiveness, underscoring the unforeseen negative repercussions of tax amendments.

The political position is strongly supportive of the government’s strategic leadership, emphasizing "Estonia 2035" as a coordinating tool for the country’s long-term planning. The speaker stresses the need to adapt to the changing world in order to achieve economic prosperity, well-being, freedom, security, and justice. The stance is heavily policy- and results-driven, defending the coalition’s proposed reforms, particularly in the area of labor law.

The primary focus is on amendments to the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act, particularly concerning the obligation for ministers to appear before parliamentary committees. One side criticizes the previous instances of ignoring committees, while the opposing side defends the practice, stressing the committees' tendency to overstep their mandate in order to create a political spectacle. Also notable is a vigorous attempt to revise the historical narrative surrounding Kaja Kallas’s 2022 resignation and the subsequent formation of the government. The political stance is heavily procedure-focused, aimed either at condemning or justifying past instances of improper conduct.

The political stance is moderately supportive of the maritime security enhancement bill, but stresses that it must be tied to the creation of an international treaty. This position is based on policy and precedent, focusing specifically on the protection of Baltic Sea infrastructure. The speaker expresses surprise and eager anticipation that the government has not itself proposed the idea of an international treaty, especially considering recent events.

The political focus is on increasing the efficiency of criminal proceedings and ensuring the certainty of punishment, while strongly supporting Bill 560 SE, which he deems "almost the best bill." He stresses that this is substantive work that addresses the repeated calls by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for optimizing the process. His stance is strongly policy- and results-driven, focusing on improving the functioning of the justice system.

The political focus is on the historical and current handling of the Tallinn Hospital project financing. The speaker strongly defends the previous decision to withdraw the allocation of funds, justifying this by citing the failure to meet project-related deadlines. The stance is heavily performance-based, concentrating on the opposing side's responsibility and inconsistencies.

The political focus centers on the strategic importance of the Rail Baltic project, specifically highlighting its security policy dimension given the ongoing events in Ukraine. The speaker firmly backs the continuation of the project, taking a stand against those attempting to block it via an investigative commission. Their stance is deeply rooted in values (security) and policy (EU funding), and they accuse their opponents of a lack of sincerity.

The speaker strongly opposes the draft amendment to the Penal Code (452 SE), which sought to criminalize false statements made by ministers in the Riigikogu, calling the bill "utter nonsense." The position is strongly procedural and legal, emphasizing the protection of the immunity (indemnity) afforded to members of the Riigikogu and the need to avoid conflating American legal systems with Estonian traditions. He/She also points to the contradiction that immunity should, conversely, be extended to ministers when they appear before the Riigikogu.

Insufficient data.

Randpere strongly supports the respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence (Article 22 of the Constitution) in society and the media, deeming it a topic worthy of debate. He is critical of the specific sentencing guidelines outlined in draft bill 411 SE, arguing that they unduly restrict freedom of speech. He supported the consensus decision by the Legal Affairs Committee to reject the bill, even though he acknowledged that the underlying problem exists.

The political position heavily emphasizes strict adherence to the Riigikogu's rules of procedure and the defined competence of its committees. The speaker criticizes the committees, especially the special committee for state budget control, for exceeding their mandate, which obstructs the work of government members. The stance is clearly procedural and results-oriented, demanding that the committees deal strictly with the matters for which they are legally established.

The political stance centers on the impediments to developing cultural infrastructure, thereby offering implicit support for moving forward with the Estonia theatre extension. The speaker harshly criticizes the authority and actions of the National Heritage Board, deeming them an unreasonable obstruction (citing, for instance, the protection of Linnahall, which they refer to as a "pile of garbage"). This position is results-driven, demanding swift and decisive ministerial intervention to resolve the current situation.

The political position is strongly opposed to the proposal to enhance the Justice Minister's administrative oversight of the Prosecutor's Office, as they believe this threatens the fundamental principle of excluding political interference. They defend the current regulation and emphasize that effective supervision is already carried out through the court system, which is appropriate for a state governed by the rule of law. Their views are strongly policy- and value-based, focusing on safeguarding the separation of powers and the rule of law.

The political position is strongly focused on supporting the denunciation of the legal assistance treaty between Estonia and the Russian Federation. The argumentation is primarily results-based and values-driven, emphasizing that Russia selectively uses the treaty for its own interests (for instance, sharing compromising information on opposition figures) and fails to provide appropriate assistance to rule-of-law states, particularly in money laundering investigations. This stance is firm and relies on highlighting the failures seen in previous cases (like Swedbank).

The political position is strongly focused on supporting the abolition of the tax hump, which is presented as a tax cut for most employees earning under 8,000 euros per month. The speaker opposes the draft bill concerning the reduction of VAT on foodstuffs and medicines, deeming it ineffective and criticizing its class struggle framework. The framework itself is policy-based, concentrating on the technical details and impact of the tax system.

The political stance is one of strong support for denouncing the legal assistance treaty between Estonia and the Russian Federation. This is justified by Russia’s unreliability, its failure to comply with agreements, and its aggressive behavior, particularly in light of the war in Ukraine and the declaration of Estonian state officials as wanted persons. The position is clearly value-driven, emphasizing that legal cooperation with an aggressor state is inappropriate.

Moderately supports the imposition of the motor vehicle tax, although acknowledging a personal aversion to it. The primary justification is the state's need for revenue and the necessity of making defense investments due to the ongoing war situation in Europe. The political framework is strongly results-oriented and focused on security.

The speaker strongly positions himself as an opponent of the proponent (Henn/EKRE) of Bill 222 OE (special labeling of insects), focusing heavily on the opponent's political inconsistency and underlying motives. The core argument is a value-based critique, accusing the opponent of hypocrisy regarding the ban on certain articles of clothing—a measure the opponent had previously endorsed. The emphasis is placed more on discrediting the opponent than on a substantive analysis of the specific policy (the labeling requirement).

The focus is heavily placed on holding individuals accountable for past financial policy mistakes, particularly regarding the dismantling of the second pillar pension system and the resulting 22 million euro loss incurred by the state. The political stance is forcefully results-oriented, sharply criticizing the former finance minister's miscalculation. The objective is to direct the financial claim incurred by the state against a specific politician.

The speaker vigorously defends the independence of the Estonian rule of law and the Prosecutor's Office, emphasizing that acquittals are a sign that the system is functioning, not failing. He/She is firmly opposed to draft legislation that would increase oversight of the Prosecutor's Office by the Supreme Court or the Chancellor of Justice, arguing that this would upset the balance of the administration of justice. The political position is strongly value-driven, focusing on preserving the separation of powers and institutional stability.

The political focus is currently centered on clarifying the higher education funding model (free vs. tuition-based) in Estonia. The speaker is attempting to ascertain the opposing side's position on whether higher education should remain free for Estonian-language instruction or whether it should be made tuition-based. The framing of these positions is policy- and funding-driven, seeking the economic rationale underlying the opposing party's draft legislation.

The political position strongly emphasizes sovereignty, supporting the state's right to decide on granting residence permits without needing to provide justification. The speaker considers the non-renewal of the Metropolitan of the EOC-MP’s residence permit to be highly reasonable and well-justified, citing the church's positions on international issues and its proximity to the Kremlin. Additionally, a more radical question is being raised concerning the Russian church’s building rights (or leasehold) and the suitability of its location directly opposite the Riigikogu (Parliament). The political framework is strongly rooted in security and values.

The political focus centers on the funding crisis within the education system and its connection to the implementation of free higher education in 2011/2012. The official stance is critical, specifically questioning the policy's long-term negative repercussions on both financing and the quality of higher education. This position is heavily performance-driven, seeking definitive answers as to whether the change has actually improved the educational landscape.

The political stance heavily focuses on fiscal discipline and demanding reforms within the education sector in order to secure funding for teachers' salary increases. The speaker criticizes the divergence between the coalition partner’s (Eesti 200) previous election promises and their current actions, emphasizing the necessity of cutting the ministry’s substantial budget. This position is results-based, calling into question the minister’s capacity to implement the necessary reforms.

The political position is strongly focused on protecting the rule of law and the separation of powers, opposing the expansion of the Ministry of Justice's administrative oversight over the Prosecutor's Office. He sharply criticizes the opposing side's rhetoric, which labels Estonia an "Eastern dictatorship," emphasizing that acquittals demonstrate the functioning of the rule of law. His approach is rather policy-based, focusing on the existence of control mechanisms and the rejection of the draft bill.

The political position is primarily aimed at challenging the value-based and procedural conduct of the opposition party (EKRE). They prefer framing the political narrative through earlier, highly contentious standpoints (opposition to surrogacy, human trafficking) and demand clarification regarding the tactics used to obstruct parliamentary work.