By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The political position focuses on the institutional leadership of the Riigikogu and the need for a fundamental change in the work of the parliament. The speaker is strongly opposed to the actions of the current Speaker, Lauri Hussar, accusing him of creating confrontation, selectively interpreting the rules of procedure, and effectively silencing the parliament. The goal is to replace the current leader with Helir-Valdor Seeder, who would be capable of fulfilling the role of an independent and fair arbiter. This is primarily about institutional performance and a value-based framework.

The political stance is strongly oriented toward securing national interests and security, stressing the necessity of rising above partisan fervor. The speaker firmly supports the swift resolution of the issue concerning voting rights for third-country nationals (an Isamaa proposal) and criticizes the government's inertia in processing the draft law aimed at cutting off influence related to the Moscow Patriarchate. Emphasis is placed on legal certainty and long-term strategic decision-making power in ensuring the constitutional order.

The political stance is one of strong opposition, focusing on criticizing the government's actions and competence. Key issues include inflation driven by tax hikes and the lack of sustainability in economic growth, as well as the ambiguity surrounding the coalition agreement and the contradictory positions taken by ministers. The criticism targets the effectiveness of the government's performance and its political clarity.

The most crucial issue is national security, requiring the immediate closure of the temporary control line with the Russian Federation to mitigate the risks of sabotage and terrorism and curb sanction violations. The political stance is sharply critical of the government's actions, as it took 70 days for the draft decision to enter proceedings, which suggests a lack of decisiveness in security matters. The framework is strongly value-based (a national response to acts of terror) and results-oriented (the government's fulfillment of its duty of care).

The political stance is strongly focused on defending constitutional jurisdiction, particularly regarding the denunciation of international treaties, opposing the government's attempts to resolve matters of public law "in passing." It criticizes the government’s sluggishness in resolving the status of the Taiwan representation and opposes the coalition’s actions, which are effectively increasing the administrative burden and the cost of services. It emphasizes stability and continuity in foreign relations and deems the restoration of political trust essential.

Politically, the speaker’s primary focus is on national defense and the rapid development of military capability, relying heavily on the professional advice provided by the Commander of the Defense Forces. He sharply criticizes the government for its political failures and delays, arguing that they have wasted crucial time in acquiring critical capabilities, such as counter-drone systems. His position is strongly results-oriented, demanding that the government take full and immediate action commensurate with the serious security threat.

The political stance is strongly oppositional, focusing on the inefficiency of the government’s activities and the political crisis of confidence. The highest priority is considered to be exiting the country’s political deadlock, proposing the organization of new snap parliamentary elections at the end of April as a solution, citing the German model. The primary subjects of criticism are the management chaos in security (ammunition procurement) and the economy (the cascade of tax hikes).

The political stance is strongly oppositional, focusing on diagnosing the government’s management failures and the deepening crisis of trust in Estonia. The most critical issues are economic policy (tax hikes) and the stalling of crucial security decisions. They are demanding the Prime Minister's resignation, arguing that the current government has proven to be indecisive and ungovernable.