By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The most crucial issue is the defense of the Estonian state’s core values and security posture within the context of the Russian Federation's aggression. The speaker is strongly opposed to Infrastructure Minister Vladimir Svet continuing in office due to his previous statements regarding the status of Crimea and the collapse of the Soviet Union. This political stance is clearly value-based, emphasizing that this individual is not suitable to serve as a member of the Government of the Republic in this country and at this time. Criticism is also aimed at the Prime Minister’s lack of an adequate response concerning these personnel choices.

The political position is strongly opposed to the government's tax hikes (especially the car tax), highlighting the economic recession and public uncertainty. The core demand is the immediate reduction of governing costs through a negative supplementary budget, rather than raising taxes. The stance is based on both policy and performance, accusing the government of systematically creating uncertainty. On behalf of Isamaa, they promise to abolish the car tax in the future.

The politician is vehemently opposed to the car tax, calling it unconstitutional and promising to repeal it should the Isamaa party return to power. His political platform is highly critical, accusing the Kallas-Michal governments of systematically generating instability, which is manifested through tax hikes, cuts to family benefits, and the failure to implement promised teacher salary increases. He is demanding that the government immediately adopt a negative supplementary budget and correct its policies to meet the expectations of society.

The speaker adopts a strongly critical stance regarding the government's actions, focusing on two primary areas: national security and fiscal discipline. He/She specifically questions the suitability of Minister (Sveti) to serve in the government due to his/her public statements concerning the status of Crimea following its annexation. Economically, the speaker opposes the government’s tax policy, which imposes a burden on individuals and businesses estimated to be in the range of a billion euros.

The political stance is strongly opposed to the swift implementation of the car tax, highlighting both procedural and constitutional concerns. The opposition frames this as a violation of legitimate expectation, citing Section 41 of the Taxation Procedure Act concerning the required six-month notice period. This position is clearly grounded in policy and legal norms, questioning the constitutionality of the draft bill.