By Plenary Sessions: Aleksandr Tšaplõgin

The political position is sharply critical of Estonian foreign policy, particularly concerning the interference in Georgia’s sovereignty through sanctions. The speaker questions Estonia’s right to intervene in the internal affairs of a legitimately elected government, stressing the principle of sovereignty. The political framework is value-driven, focusing on the consistency of international law.

The political focus is on the economic recession and the government's tax policy, which is being sharply criticized. The speaker strongly opposes raising taxes, arguing that it will stifle economic growth and harm the poorest citizens. As an alternative, they propose wealth taxes (a tax on bank profits, progressive income tax) and extensive cost cuts, such as abandoning the Rail Baltic project.

The political stance is strongly oppositional, focusing on the government's failed economic management, which is characterized by a recession lasting for the tenth consecutive quarter. The speaker strictly rejects the government's energy policy, which has led to self-imposed environmental requirements and a reduction in production capacity. This position is outcome-driven, accusing the government of catastrophic domestic decisions.

The political stance centers on emphasizing the merit of its proposed draft legislation, pointing toward a policy- and results-based framework. The speaker positions themselves within the opposition, criticizing the governing coalition's intent to reject their proposal. The stance is moderately confrontational, focusing specifically on the procedural obstruction.

The political stance is strongly opposed to the government's tax increases, particularly during an economic recession, stressing that these measures will stifle economic growth and impoverish the population. This position is heavily evidence-based, citing the shrinking economy and rising inflation, while also being value-based, highlighting the injustice of taxing the poorest segments of society. While the necessity of funding national security is acknowledged, the chosen method is deemed both unfair and detrimental.

The speaker positions himself as a staunch opponent of state interference in the private lives and family affairs of citizens, stressing that the state, via this draft legislation, is effectively replacing parents. His stance is value-driven, centered on restricting state control and contrasting sharply with the Scandinavian model, which he views as destructive to traditional families. The opposition to this specific bill is robust and is reflected in the stated intention to vote against it.