Is EKRE interested in the deputy chair of Riigikogu now that you have a real chance of getting it in March, since the Center Party is unlikely to get it anyway?

Of course. The opposition sits in the Riigikogu's Board, per Estonian tradition and practice. Our party has been the largest opposition party almost at all times, so we will run for this seat in the elections since we consider it ours.

Who is your candidate?

We are still talking about it amongst ourselves. Most likely, I will not apply for the position myself. Although it is typical for an opposition party's leader to serve as the second vice-chair in parliament. But we haven't decided yet.

Why don't you stand as a candidate?

On the substantive side, the speaker of the Riigikogu is bound to the floor at certain times. I'd like to go around Estonia in the spring to meet people.

Henn Põlluaas, former speaker of the Riigikogu, served as the board's chair. He could be a suitable candidate because he understands how things work there.

We certainly have many qualified people who could and would do a great job. Since we have not yet finalized and agreed on this, I will not recommend any names at this time.

When will we hear the name?

We will announce our candidate more or less when the elections come.

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that you should no longer bring obstructionist concerns from the Riigikogu to the court. The coalition is thrilled because they can start identifying obstructionist initiatives before the second reading ,so that obstructionist proposals will be discarded. This fundamentally changes the working of the Riigikogu.

I'd say that of all the disputes before the Supreme Court regarding the Riigikogu's internal disputes or obstructionist disputes, yesterday's decision has the most fundamental impact. It has obvious consequences.

There is no longer any possibility of night sittings because the Supreme Court has given the coalition parties a blank check to decide which amendments will be dealt with and which will not.

I do not know what the actual limit, so to say, will be. Whether we can table two amendments or 20. But one way or another, it will be of such a magnitude that there would be no more waste of time in the Riigikogu.

This, in turn, means that there is no real need for the government to tie bills to a confidence vote. The president is also now appealing to the Supreme Court on the question of whether the government can tie arbitrary laws to a confidence vote. So it makes no difference what the Supreme Court now says about it. With the latest decision, it has taken away any need for the government to bind bills with a vote of confidence, because it has taken away the opposition's ability to filibuster amendments. What this means for parliamentary democracy in Estonia is that almost all the tools that the opposition has had in parliament for the last 25–30 years have now been taken away.

The board has been given the right not to put questions on the agenda. The board has been given the right not to place on the agenda first readings of draft texts, and committees have been given the right not to deal with amendments from the opposition. The possibility for the opposition to contribute procedurally to the work of the Riigikogu or to influence the process in any way is completely eliminated.

And here, one can simply say that our Supreme Court is an integral part of this whole liberal regime and that the judges of the Supreme Court act as liberal political activists, not as defenders of the Constitution and democracy. This, in turn, means that more of the politics that can't be done inside parliament goes outside parliament.

And, of course, it also means that, since there are no more rules, written or unwritten, political culture will inevitably become more aggressive.

We saw yesterday with the car tax reading that if we cannot influence the process with amendments or in any other way, the consequence of this for Estonian politics, Estonian parliamentary politics and democracy is very negative.

Let's say there's a proposal in the committee that the coalition says is obstructionist in nature and we throw it out. You could still go to court and start arguing whether it was obstructionist or not. Would you do that?

There is little chance of success in court. In my opinion, the Supreme Court has now consistently taken the position that it protects the liberal power against us. And the liberal power can do whatever it wants. That has been the message of the court throughout the disputes, and I think there have been four of them, so we get the message.

Looking at the comments on yesterday's Supreme Court decision, the EKRE position was very clear and most critical. Isamaa and the Center Party said little about it. What does this say? Is the opposition no longer cooperating in the Riigikogu?

First of all, the Center Party and Isamaa were not involved in the complaint. They did not want to be involved in this dispute from the outset.

Isamaa in particular, but also the Center Party, have taken the position that the government can be criticized to the limit. If this criticism becomes too sharp, which could potentially affect the processes, they wouldn't go any further. They just try to be seen and heard within the rules set by the powers that be, but they wouldn't do anything to change the rules or disobey those rules.

Our approach is fundamentally different. We don't accept that the parties in power tell us what to do or what to say.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!