By Plenary Sessions: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The speaker strongly opposes the government’s regional policy, particularly the proposed creation of four "oblasts," which he labels as centralization and "stupidity squared." He firmly supports state funding for grassroots sports organizations (Jõud, School Sports Association) and demands the completion of the regional football hall project in every county, a project initiated under the previous coalition agreement. His political framework is heavily focused on reducing bureaucracy and preserving regional autonomy in decision-making.

The political position is strongly critical of the current state budget and the process by which it was handled, emphasizing that due to its lack of transparency, the budget is potentially unconstitutional. This stance is procedural and outcome-based, focusing on the legality and clarity of the state's finances. The speaker also questions why the president failed to return the budget, citing systemic irregularities.

The most prominent theme is defining the populist nature of the draft legislation. The stance is scrutinizing and cautious regarding potential populism, whether left- or right-wing, which points to a value-based approach to the quality of lawmaking.

The political position is one of strong opposition to the government's fiscal policy, particularly the tax hikes that have been raised to record levels without the budget having any clear objective. The speaker vigorously defends the rights of the opposition and criticizes the handling of the draft bill as unjust, citing violations of the Rules of Procedure Act. The criticism is primarily aimed at the government's actions and performance (its performance-driven approach).

The political stance is sharply critical of the government’s actions, accusing it of substituting necessary decisions with unnecessary bureaucracy and mere busywork. The strongest objections are raised against the vague content of the education pact and regional agreements, as well as the failure to resolve public transport funding. The criticism focuses primarily on the government’s inefficiency and procedural shortcomings. Furthermore, the wording of the coalition’s draft constitutional amendment concerning suffrage is also opposed.

The political stance is sharply critical of the government (specifically Kristen Michal’s cabinet), particularly concerning its tax policy, faulting it for the confusion and inconsistency between promising "tax peace" and the subsequent introduction of new levies (the security tax). The speaker demands clarity in legislation and advocates for protecting those who preserve cultural heritage (restorers of vintage vehicles) from unreasonable annual taxes. The position is strongly procedural and policy-driven, emphasizing the necessity of laws for regulating conflicting situations.

A strong, value-based opposition to the government's practice of granting citizenship to individuals repeatedly convicted of intentional crimes. It emphasizes that citizenship is a privilege, not an inherent human right, and that loyalty and national security must be paramount when it is conferred. The political framework is conservative and state-centric, criticizing the granting of broad discretion to officials and the government.

The speaker is a prominent opposition politician who concentrates on government accountability, fiscal transparency, and strict adherence to legislative procedures. He opposes the proposed broad-based tax hike (the so-called security tax) and insists on the targeted allocation of defense spending. His political focus is heavily aimed at violations of the Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules, as well as education policy issues (specifically, the Estonian-language environment), framing his arguments through a legal and value-based lens.

The speaker's political stance is strictly procedural, focusing on advancing the legislative process during the plenary session of the Riigikogu. This position is manifested in a consistent demand to put the proposed amendments to a vote. Specific political preferences or a value-based framework are not evident from the speeches.