On Monday, the Reform Party's frontrunner Urmas Paet and the candidate list's last place man Hanno Pevkur met on the "Otse uudistemajast" elections special.

Let me start by pointing out that you've both been campaigning hard. How many voters come up to you to express their frustration over what is happening in and around the government and coalition? How often does it come up?

Urmas Paet: It does come up. Society is not uniform, and there are those who are, let's say, very dissatisfied. Then there are those who criticize more evenly, as well as those who are generally fine and say that while there are some domestic issues, they understand that in the context of these elections, it is important to concentrate on making sure Estonia gets the best seven representatives in the European Parliament for the next five years. Those who do not pool all issues. So, the picture is varied.

Hanno Pevkur: Seems I've been a little more fortunate then. The people I've met have been relatively friendly. Of course, there are those who dismiss you right away just for being from the Reform Party. It makes sense you'll meet a cross-section of society out in the streets, but generally speaking, I would say that during Riigikogu, local and European elections campaigns people want to talk and ask questions.

It makes little sense to get bogged down in a lengthy debate with those who cannot be convinced. For example, when you recognize someone as an EKRE voter who just cannot be converted. You have to take people as they come.

Hanno Pevkur, have you campaigned in Võru?

Pevkur: I've done less campaigning and more in the way of my work (as defense minister – ed.).

Will you be going to Võru?

Pevkur: I will go if it is needed. Unfortunately, I will be catching a plane to an EU ministerial in Brussels later today and will depart for a foreign visit from there. I will be away from Estonia this whole week.

Paet: I was in Võru on May 9. It was a lovely day. I attended the Tartu Elderly Festival in the first half of the day – a high-spirited event which I heartily recommend visiting as we'll all have reason to sooner or later. I traveled to Võru from Tartu.

Were you not asked about Hanno Pevkur and Nursipalu topics?

Paet: Not as such.

Pevkur: I've been there enough times myself, for meetings attended primarily by those who wish to ask about the training area. Looking at studies on Nursipalu, people in Southeast Estonia also realize why we're doing it. (The government's decision to expand the Nursipalu Training Area has left many in the area dissatisfied – ed.)

The point is not to pester anyone. It is not Hanno Pevkur's personal training area but rather something that the Estonian Defense Forces needs to be prepared for threats.

Paet: As we're on regional topics, it has to be said that people feel the threat more acutely in Võru County and South Estonia. Looking at the map, Võru County is the only part of Estonia that has a direct land border with Russia. There are rivers and lakes further north, while it's a land border in Võru County. I felt that the people there were more acutely aware of the danger, compared to the rest of Estonia.

It seems to me that those who suggested the campaign would be centered around domestic politics and one of the opposition criticizing the coalition's shortcomings have been mistaken. The campaign has been relatively inert, which is why you've been spared.

Pevkur: It is not about being spared. The thing is that people in Estonia make very conscious choices. Considering the popularity of Urmas [Paet] and Marina Kaljurand, they've proven their merit in the European Parliament. So there is a kind of dissonance, looking at the latest polls.

On one hand, I seem to be the most popular government minister, while support for me in the context of the European elections is not the greatest. Rather, the message is that people don't want me to leave.

This is to say that people clearly tell the difference between European and general or local elections. There are clear differences in ratings also between parliamentary and local elections. You can't just take people for a ride. While some will always support your person, there is a clear difference between European and Riigikogu elections.

What would have Reform's position been had Andrus Ansip decided to run? As things stand, you may land two seats, while you also may not. We can probably congratulate Urmas Paet here and now, while Ansip would have made Reform's two seats a sure thing.

Paet: I would like to hope that would have been the case, and I still think it's regrettable Andrus Ansip decided not to run. People who would have voted for him surely had a second or third preference, which is where those votes will be going now.

Who might they be?

Paet: Looking at what Andrus told Eesti Päevaleht a few days ago when he revealed the results of a secret vote, he said he would back my candidacy. So that is where a part of those votes might go, but not all.

Pevkur: I'm quite sure we won't lose much in terms of votes. If you are prepared to support the party and Andrus Ansip, I believe you can find a suitable alternative among nine candidates. Looking at polls when Andrus was still running versus now, Urmas' rating has exploded since, which makes sense if you're the frontrunner. /.../

Paet: It's this way and that. We have examples from European elections where frontrunners have not been elected, while people further down the list get the posting. I think we'll also see examples this time. These elections are very different from Riigikogu or local government council elections because of the personal aspect.

They also largely differ from electoral systems in Europe. That is one reason Estonia's European Parliament delegations have always been strong – people get a personal mandate.

Talking about to what extent European elections include a domestic policy dimension, it's definitely there. But again, many people I've met want to see Estonia's seven delegates kind of rise above the everyday domestic politics conflict and work together to represent broader interests in the EU. Looking at the outgoing mandate, I'd say we've largely pulled it off, despite hailing from different parties. /.../

In addition to getting into the European Parliament, you'd both love to run the Reform Party. Hanno Pevkur has done so once before.

Paet: I haven't, nor have I expressed any desire to.

You two plus Minister of Climate Kristen Michal are the top three candidates to succeed Kaja Kallas should she decide to take a job with the European Commission. Why run in a situation where the party chairmanship is just around the corner?

Pevkur: Kaja has clearly said it's too soon to write her off. She is working as prime minister...

We are not writing her off, she's simply taking a good posting in Brussels.

Pevkur: Time will tell. First, I'm convinced the decision of who will be following Kaja Kallas is up to members of the party, irrespective of whether the choice needs to be made this year, next year etc.

Secondly, I would advise against getting out your best tie just yet. /.../ We need to proceed based on the actual situation.

In terms of why I agreed to join the European elections campaign, it's the European and global security situation. It would be difficult to explain the defense minister's absence from national security debates. I said I'm willing to support the party. The voters will speak on June 9.

Saying that one is willing to support the party usually amounts to not going to the European Parliament for a politician.

Pevkur: First, we'll need to secure two mandates. I'm 100 percent certain Urmas will get a new mandate.

Paet: No sense in counting on it before the results are in. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Pevkur: You can get out your best tie.

Paet: I will be doing no such thing. I'm used to working until the goal is reached, and then we'll see.

Pevkur: Our shared goal is to get those two mandates. First we need the mandates and only then can we look to who will fill them. Unlike in Latvia and Lithuania, it's not possible to vote against a candidate in Estonia.

Paet: You could end up getting nothing but votes against. Perhaps it would be better to stick with the current system.

Pevkur: I believe there was a case in Latvia where a local council delegate was elected after they got more votes against than for. Things are simpler for us – you either support a candidate or you don't. /.../

Provided Urmas Paet will get the most votes, polls suggest it will be either Hanno Pevkur or Marko Mihkelson in second. Let's say you'll get more votes than Mihkelson, will you give up your European Parliament seat and remain defense minister?

Pevkur: That is a decision I will be making after the election. I will base it also on how many votes I'll get. I do not want to speculate today as it just wouldn't be sensible. In a situation where we don't know whether we'll get a single mandate or two.

Paet: I will continue my work in the European Parliament should I be elected, and I'll preferably stick with foreign policy and security.

Kaja Kallas will need to make her decision in August at the latest. Official negotiations will start after European Parliament elections, while she has until August to communicate her decision. After that, you'll both have to be ready to run for Reform chair because it comes with the prime minister's job, at least until the next general election.

Pevkur: I'll say again that it doesn't make sense to speculate. First, we'll need to wait for Kaja's decision, and a lot depends on what will happen in the Council on June 17. How those portfolios will be distributed.

The most important thing will be the balance of powers late on June 9. While we may expect the EPP to win, followed by the social democrats and liberals, which would allow the grand coalition to continue...

It's fun for the media and people to speculate on the seats and who will be responsible for what, but I would wait for the results before making decisions.

I don't think the average person is interested which position Kaja Kallas will land. What matters is whether she will continue to run the government or not.

Pevkur: While Kaja Kallas is definitely interested in her prospects in Europe.

Paet: Honestly, I don't know what you're even discussing here as neither Kaja herself nor anyone else has told me about her intentions. I've read nothing on the topic.

You're both members of the board and influential members of the party and you've not been told?

Pevkur: I think it makes sense.

Paet: We have not been told.

Is there an in-house agreement? Not that you would be able to admit it.

Paet: We are able to admit that there is no agreement.

Pevkur: None concerning me or Urmas.

Paet: There might be an agreement elsewhere, but it does not include us.

Are you not part of the inner circle?

Paet: I don't know about any circles, but the objective answer is that this matter has not been discussed in any way. And I believe that is how it should be. It's speculation for some, new hopes for others and wishful thinking for yet others, but that's all there is to it.

Asking people whether they plan to run for future positions that may be opening up is a little pointless. You can want all kinds of things. I wanted to become an engine-driver when I was a little kid.

Pevkur: You can still do it!

Paet: I'm not sure, there are some stringent criteria involved. I don't think I'd qualify. While one is free to think all kinds of thoughts, telling people something on what is a serious debate show would need a little more basis.

Which portfolio would better suit Kallas and Estonia – that of the high representative or the defense commissioner?

Paet: Both, I think. Leaving aside candidates and talking generally, the post of high representative was and will remain among the Commission and the EU's top four jobs so to speak.

Whether to have a defense commissioner has not been decided yet. Once the decision to have the post is taken, a great debate will ensue on what the portfolio will entail. As we know, defense has been in the jurisdiction of member states so far.

The debate on what will make the portfolio is yet to happen. There has been talk of the defense industry, which currently lies elsewhere, having European infrastructure meet defense needs, which is in yet another place today, etc. Let's be honest, no one wants to surrender topics.

If you ask which position is more influential, it is that of the high representative as the position already exists in EU documentation. It has sweeping powers and functionality. And whether it has justified itself or not, it is definitely among the top four postings in the European Union.

Pevkur: We need to keep in mind that should the Commission get a defense or defense industry commissioner, it will mean the disappearance of another commissioner. Right now, matters of defense are in the portfolios of [Josep] Borrell and [Thierry] Breton. /.../

Presumably, Ursula von der Leyen will have to start working on the distribution of portfolios and commissioners after she is given the powers of Commission president. At the end of the day, no country that presents its candidates for commissioner knows which positions it will get.

The talks start earlier. I'm sure that if Kaja Kallas has an interest she has already spoken to von der Leyen about it.

Pevkur: What's clear is that heads of government have better chances to land a good portfolio. We saw it in the case of Andrus Ansip and of Siim Kallas, that if you have served or are the incumbent prime minister, your chances of landing a vice presidency or the post of high representative are considerably higher.

Paet: Not always. Borrell was never prime minister of Spain.

What I also wanted to say about the distribution of posts is that the first round depends on the balance between political groups. Today, we expect the coalition or majority to stay the same. The European People's Party, social democrats and liberals, or Renew Europe as we're called now.

The question is whether this will be enough to hold the majority, or whether it will only be a very slight majority and we'd need to bring someone else on board. Whether we're talking about even more conservative conservatives or the greens, for example. That will also determine the distribution of top spots because the first round is between political groups. We'll need to start by determining Renew Europe's chances of keeping certain positions.

There are those inside Renew Europe who would like to be the group's one and only posting. Renew Europe will likely only land one of the four key positions. There is strong European competition for that one post Renew Europe is likely to get.

Would you both consider a commissioner's office? Urmas Paet has said he would.

Paet: Yes, I have expressed interest.

What about you, Hanno Pevkur?

Pevkur: Time will tell. So far, I've had considerably more passion for executive roles so to speak. I'm not ruling anything out. My heart is in the Ministry of Defense now, but in terms of what will happen after June 9... Again – there is so much speculation and these so-called Tambov constants (any number added to, subtracted from, multiplied or divided by the actual result in order to arrive at the desired outcome – ed.). Who would be Estonia's representative in the Commission? Because Estonia's representative could and should come from the Reform Party, if Urmas became commissioner, who would go to the European Parliament instead etc. There is too much of the puzzle for speculation to make much sense.

Have you ever considered that perhaps Reform Party members should be in the European People's Party group instead? It's much larger and more influential. Let's be honest – the Reform Party is not as liberal as it used to be 15-20 years ago?

Paet: At the same time, we fit in nicely with European liberals. So-called liberal parties in Europe run the gamut. The fact that Estonia has two parties there now and might have three in the future is an indication. /.../ As concerns any such debate, there hasn't been one. Personally, I've entertained the thought when there has been trouble in the European Parliament, but I've always calmed down again and found it would be insensible.

While the EPP is the largest group, looking at delegates' chances of getting things done, I would say they are better in Renew Europe.

Reports, draft resolutions and committee chairmanships are distributed proportionally, but there are simply so many EPP delegates that there aren't enough positions to go around. It is easier for Renew Europe to organize these things.

Renew Europe quickly adopted a firm stance on Russia's aggression against Ukraine and has been consistent therein. Other political groups have had their fluctuations.

But the short answer is that it is not on our agenda.

Pevkur: Sniffing the wind is not a wise course in politics. Usually, it is characteristic of populists to go over to where it's more convenient. We should first look at values, and Renew's values are considerably closer to those of the Reform Party. The defector's mentality will stick.

It's enough to defect once to the largest group.

Pevkur: You'll be watering down your own broth. As Urmas said, one should proceed based on values and correlation between programs and positions.

Paet: Based on the last five years, I have no doubt that sticking with Renew Europe is the right course for the Reform Party, as concerns the fundamental value positions of European security, but also other things – human rights, women's rights. Reform looks better to me as a Renew Europe or ALDE party.

Your program reads – we'll boost the influence and effectiveness of EU foreign policy by introducing qualified majority voting in areas of foreign policy that concern human rights violations, international crime and sanctions. Doesn't that amount to opening Pandora's box in terms of qualified majority decision-making soon moving to other fields? It already has in fact.

Paet: It has, meaning that we'll not be opening anything.

Let's say what you're after happens, and we'll find ourselves in a situation six months from now where most EU member states agree that Ukraine should agree to a ceasefire based on where the front line is today. We would be the minority in such a vote.

Paet: That would be a very different EU, and we would have much more existential problems on our hands.

Actual steps should fall within what's practically possible. The provision concerns the need to react as soon as possible and to react effectively in cases such as the Ukraine war today.

What we've seen instead is Hungary trying to water down and obstruct putting pressure on Russia, supporting Ukraine, and going down the path of blackmail by tying these matters to unrelated ones.

Before that, we saw a country block the EU from taking action against Belarus when we needed to put pressure on Lukashenko. Recent years have shown that individual countries can keep others from exercising their will in situations which require rapid and firm reaction.

I do not consider the good host's example to be realistic. In a situation where Estonia would be alone or almost alone in believing we need to put pressure on aggressor states, the world would be doomed and these things would hardly make a difference.

Pevkur: We need to realize one thing – no such vote can take place without Ukraine having asked for it first. The EU cannot make decisions that are binding for Ukraine in terms of the war.

Paet: I take it that the host fears Europe might decide not to support Ukraine in order to force it to seek a deal. But again – such a situation would be so bad that minor changes in voting procedure would hardly be of significance.

--

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