The three coalition parties, the Reform Party, the Social Democrats (SDE) and Eesti 200, whose leader, Lauri Hussar, is also President of the Riigikogu, are gearing up to put restrictions on the opposition's scope in filibustering.

This would include, for instance, limits to the opposition's right to take obstructive breaks.

Over the one year, to the day, since the Reform-SDE-Eesti 200 coalition signed its agreement, opposition parties and EKRE in particular have been seeking new means of filibustering, while coalition parties have responded in kind in finding new ways of breaking the filibuster.

Legal battles aside, the most traditional means of obstruction, one of all the six current Riigikogu parties are aware of, remains available to the opposition.

This entails submitting dozens of amendments and taking ten-minute breaks with each amendment.

So, at first glance, there may seem nothing unusual about the 96 amendments presented at the election law amendment bill, which was on Tuesday's Riigikogu agenda.

However, this time around there were a few differences.

First, EKRE submitted a total of 266 amendments to the bill, which changed the rules of electronic voting.

A large portion of these was subsequently bundled together for processing, by the Riigikogu's Constitutional Affairs Committee, a move that EKRE Chairman Martin Helme considers illegal.

While similar bundles of proposals have previously been so grouped together, against the opposition's wishes, no bill involving that practice has yet passed the Riigikogu.

Helme: Tomorrow the full package arrives

What happens with the 96 amendments to the electoral bill that will the Riigikogu's main hall is even more significant. While the coalition's aim for the bill is to clarify the e-voting rules, EKRE holds a diametrically opposite view.

Helme said Tuesday: "Starting from today, we have significantly slowed down the Riigikogu's work pace," adding that his party plans to hinder the bill's processing at every stage.

Via the aid of speeches, questions, and breaks, EKRE has delayed the discussion of the electoral law until Wednesday's session. "Tomorrow, of course, comes the full package," Helme said. "First, we'll properly question the bill's presenter, then give speeches and commence with taking the breaks."

Helme said he believes that following this plan, adopting the amendments could be pushed into next week.

Hussar: Breaks are intended for important votes

On the issue of breaks, all the coalition politicians who spoke to ERR recall the recent Supreme Court decisions, which stated that filibustering must only be tolerated to a reasonable extent.

Riigikogu Speaker Lauri Hussar (Eesti 200) told ERR if EKRE opts for obstruction on Wednesday, the Riigikogu board will need to find a solution.

Hussar said: "If we put about 100 proposals to a vote with 10-minute breaks, then processing the bill will take 19-20 hours' work."

"That is a very long period of time and constitutes a misuse of Riigikogu resources," the speaker went on.

Hussar added that the Riigikogu's board and its council of elders are set to discuss the matter on Wednesday, with no decisions having been made yet.

However, coalition politicians are increasingly clear that the board should limit the taking of breaks.

Hussar said that 10-minute breaks would make sense ahead of key votes, such as before the third and final reading of a bill.

He said. "All these amendments, which are submitted for filibustering purposes — and all the breaks taken on them are also taken for obstructive purposes. In such cases, we must seriously take a look behind the potential behavior."

"If the obstruction becomes excessive, the Riigikogu board has the obligation to intervene," he went on.

Late-night sessions at parliament are not out-of-the ordinary these days, but Hussar noted that the context must be considered, especially since the obstruction initiated by EKRE is broader, and affects other bills.

Keldo: Crucial that votes on amendments can go ahead

Toomas Kivimägi (Reform), one of the Riigikogu's two deputy speakers, stressed the need to assess which bills are worth spending 20 hours on.

Kivimägi said: "If we were talking about the 2025 state budget bill, then I think that 20 hours might be inevitable, that we have to take on or endure," adding that this specific electoral law bill is not as important or complex as that.

As did Hussar, Kivimägi stressed that the Riigikogu board will decide as is needed, so no steps for tomorrow had been taken at the time of speaking.

However, Kivimägi said he also does not rule out limiting the opposition's right to take breaks tomorrow.

Kivimägi's party-mate and chair of the Reform Party faction at the Riigikogu Erkki Keldo stressed the Riigikogu board must ensure smooth parliamentary work.

Keldo said: "If there is such obstruction going on, the impediment of work, then not being able to take content-free breaks is a lesser infringement than people not being able to vote normally."

"If voting is ensured, even with a shorter notification period or break time, then that would be a very reasonable compromise," Keldo added.

Ratas: Breaks are likely to be limited tomorrow

The other deputy speaker, Jüri Ratas (Isamaa), said if EKRE starts taking breaks on Wednesday, the Riigikogu's council of elders must first be convened. The council consists of the chief whips of each of the six parties, plus the Riigikogu board, ie. the speaker and his two deputies.

Ratas said: "The Riigikogu is that place where consensus must be found, and that is the purpose of the council of elders."

"If that falls through, then I think it is very likely that either the Riigikogu board or the main hall will make a decision that breaks can no longer be taken," he went on.

A decision on this matter will be voted on at the Riigikogu's main chamber if the board does not reach a consensus. Ratas said he will formulate his opinion tomorrow. He also recalled that the Supreme Court has emphasized the Riigikogu's extensive self-regulatory authority.

However, Ratas said he believes that limiting breaks would fundamentally change the work of the Riigikogu. "This would mean a 180-degree about turn in direction," said Ratas. "Essentially, this decision would remove the confidence vote from the work of the Riigikogu, because confidence votes were applied to bills when amendments were submitted."

Helme no longer sees the point of recourse to the courts

Being aware that the coalition's intent is moving towards limiting breaks, Helme said he realized that the opposition would not have many options left, adding he also no longer plans to go to court.

"That probably would not be rational," Helme said. "The Supreme Court has now been discussing the opposition's complaints two or three times already and has reached the conclusion each time that the current coalition can do whatever it wants with regard to the current opposition. Why should we waste our time and money on a case?"

Helme believes the opposition's options are now effectively shut down. However, he noted that the situation would not change even if EKRE ever did enter office, in other words, his party would deploy the same policies he sees as having been deployed against it. "When a new government comes in, then that next government will set the same standard for the next oppositions," he said.

Toomas Kivimägi, meanwhile, was unimpressed by this threat, saying he was: "Not worried at all that I won't be able to use breaks for stalling purposes tomorrow, if I was in opposition," adding that he personally dislikes wasting time.

"I don't feel the slightest bit affected by the fact that if I go into opposition, then the future coalition would take away my ability to take breaks," he reiterated.

EKRE still has its 'noise machine'

In December, at a time when the Riigikogu was formulating a decision on aid to Ukraine, EKRE filed a lawsuit, not over this matter but because the Riigikogu's finance committee had barred several of their proposals from reaching the main hall.

In February this year, the Supreme Court threw out the ensuing complaint.

After this, the infamous "noise machine," which involved Martin Helme putting a speaker in one pocket and a microphone in the other, made its first appearance at the Riigikogu's debating chamber. It issued a siren sound, accompanied by some verbal heckling.

Helme recalled: "We had a council of elders meeting a little more than a month ago, where Hussar and Kivimägi tried to coax a pledge from me to not do that anymore."

"On the contrary, I would say that we have various tactics that we are still willing to use, and the 'noise machine' is one of them," he added.

Helme said he believes that traditional methods are becoming exhausted and that EKRE has decided on the use of such tactics on an ongoing basis. He added that he believes that eventually, public opinion will also come to back EKRE.

Kivimägi: Riigikogu security powers do not extend to the main hall

Toomas Kivimägi said he believes that public opinion will turn against EKRE. He also made no secret that the Riigikogu board has discussed whether police personnel guarding the parliament could respond to events in the main hall if needed.

The answer was, that they could not.

"I don't want to be overly critical in this, but their powers to maintain order in the hall are practically non-existent," Kivimägi said. "I feel sad and embarrassed about this. What, then, is their actual function?" he asked.

Kivimägi stressed that the coalition does not plan to expand the powers of the Riigikogu security service. "Naturally, they behave within the limits of their powers, and we will not pressure them into acting otherwise."

--

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