Taking each other's measure were Marina Kaljurand (SDE), Riho Terras (Isamaa), Urmas Paet (Reform Party), Martin Helme (EKRE), Mihhail Kõlvart (Center Party), Margus Tsahkna (Eesti 200), Evelyn Sepp (Greens) and Lavly Perling (Parempoolsed).

Will green reform accelerate growth in Europe?

Everyone except Martin Helme and Lavly Perling answered in the affirmative.

Marina Kaljurand said that the Social Democrats have been in favor of the green transition and meeting the obligations Estonia and the EU have adopted from the first. "It has not turned out as ambitiously as proposed back in 2019," she said, listing the coronavirus, energy and security crises as reasons.

The MEP also said that the transition has not been sufficiently funded. "People do not understand the transition or feel it's fair. There has been a lot of confrontation, which is not doing the [Green] Deal any favors."

Riho Terras said that while the aim of the green transition has been noble, the wrong paths have been taken. "The green transition cannot be our focus in the current security situation. The focus needs to be squarely on winning the war in Ukraine," Terras noted, adding that concentrating on security in no way means that striving for a cleaner environment is misguided.

Lavly Perling noted that climate targets are justified and progress needs to be made to reach them, while they must always be tied to economic goals. "We must make sure the economy remains competitive."

But Martin Helme remarked that the Conservative People's Party (EKRE) is clearly opposed to the "ongoing climate hysteria." "The European economy is ailing, Europe is deindustrializing, with all this green rhetoric costing people in terms of their standard of living," Helme said. The EKRE leader added that climate has been changing throughout the planet's history and does not depend on whether people take cars or bicycles to work.

Helme described the green transition as totalitarian planned economy, which needs to be decisively rejected.

Urmas Paet said that extensive change has already happened when it comes to the environment and the economy. "And it must continue. I believe that most people in Estonia are satisfied with the state of our environment compared to 30 years ago," he added.

Mihhail Kõlvart said that, philosophically speaking, if the choice is between security, economy and the green transition, the latter should be the top priority if we accept it is necessary to avoid a catastrophe. However, these priorities are quickly forgotten in a crisis. "If coal remains a legitimate source of power in Germany, why shouldn't oil shale remain one in Estonia?"

The Center Party chair suggested that forecasts show the green transition requires investments the current economy just cannot support.

Margus Tsahkna said there is little sense in denouncing processes already underway. "We need to address two things. First, green policy, or becoming an independent renewable energy user in Europe. We have [Vladimir] Putin to thank, as the war in Ukraine has made sure a lot has been achieved here. The other thing is industrial policy," Estonia's foreign minister said.

Tsahkna suggested that Estonia should analyze what innovation and green transition investments can provide for the economy. "Let us hitch the green transition to the wagon that is our economy," he suggested.

Evelyn Sepp compared the green transition financing mechanisms to joint defense procurements at the EU level. "We are talking about securities investments. It will be possible at some point to consider a Europe-wide tax or higher taxes," she said.

Sepp added that the green transition is a matter of boosting the competitiveness of the economy.

Martin Helme disagreed.

"Looking at the European economy in global competition, it is a disaster. The regulative burden added by the green transition is suffocating innovation, export capacity and growth in Europe," Helme said, adding that EKRE is opposed to pan-European taxes and Brussels borrowing in the name of Estonia.

Marina Kaljurand interjected that Europe cannot afford to solve crises one by one.

"Security is and will remain a priority, no one is contesting that. But we also need to deal with the green and digital transitions, competitiveness etc." Kaljurand added that while green bonds already exist, they are not very attractive in the eyes of companies.

Should Rail Baltica be completed quickly?

Paet, Perling, Kaljurand, Tsahkna and Kõlvart said yes, Helme and Sepp no, while Riho Terras did not take a clear stand.

Martin Helme referred to Rail Baltica as a crazy project masquerading as an environmentally friendly transport solution.

"It has been science fiction from the very beginning. We all know that there won't be a train, and even if it will happen, it won't go any farther than Latvia," he said. "The project which was initially said to cost €5 billion all told is now nearing a total price tag of €40 billion."

Terras believes the Rail Baltica project should be audited. "We need the connection. Transport links are vital for economic development, and seeing as we've already invested in it, it needs to be finished quickly but not so quickly as to leave us in the dark in terms of what it will cost," the MEP said.

Evelyn Sepp described the project as a total disaster. "A tenfold cost increase, and we'll not be getting what we were promised. Only some sections will be high-speed, there won't be two sets of tracks," she said, adding that a Rail Baltica train ticket will probably cost more than airline tickets.

Perling noted that while belonging to Europe has benefitted Estonia, the country tends to adopt norms it cannot make compatible with its legal and cultural norms.

But Urmas Paet suggested that Estonia being part of Europe has been more fundamental than that. "Being together with European allies is a fundamental and existential matter," he remarked.

The Reform MEP said that having rail links to other parts of Europe is elementary in the 21st century. "Alright, the project at hand could use analysis, and some things could be done more modestly," he admitted. "But how can one oppose a country in our geopolitical position having practical [transport] links to Europe?"

Paet also referred to Rail Baltica as a security project.

Tsahkna said that Rail Baltica must be finished. "Eesti 200 also believe that the Estonia-Finland tunnel needs to enter the planning phase," he noted, adding that private capital needs to be involved next to European subsidies.

Kaljurand suggested that states are more interested in protecting their interests than free trade. "We saw borders closed and how everyone was out for number one during Covid. Today, we can see how it can be very difficult to start a business in another EU country," she said.

The SDE MEP noted that while it's true the EU tends to overregulate, the biggest problem is countries not working together.

Kõlvart pointed out that the U.S. economy has been growing twice as fast as that of Europe over the past 30 years. "There are two reasons for this. First, it is because the U.S. engages in protectionism, subsidizes its own economy and picks priority sectors – we do not," he said. The Center politician added that EU enlargement and overregulation has also kept the economy down.

Would Estonia benefit from continued EU enlargement?

Everyone except Kõlvart and Helme said it would.

"Enlargement is a security guarantee for small states and changes the EU's dynamics. It provides new opportunities and improves competitiveness," Evelyn Sepp said.

She added that the Greens believe the EU common market needs to be free, which can provide small companies and states with positive momentum.

Martin Helme said that the EU is on a completely misguided path. "Talking about competitiveness, the difference between the EU and USA is that U.S. states can choose different policies," he said. The EKRE politician suggested that competition between EU states could benefit the European economy, while this would require dialing back Brussels' say in matters.

Helme also said that there are several risks and negative aspects tied to enlargement, which are usually not discussed. He suggested that Estonia should not became a "paying country" in the EU and described as amoral pulling labor away from Ukraine.

Margus Tsahkna believes that EU enlargement is in Estonia's existential interests. "Every gray or neutral zone around Russia means continued aggression and war," he said. The Eesti 200 head said that enlargement also brings new opportunities, especially in terms of human resources.

Perling said that Parempoolsed are in favor of enlargement. "Both from the point of view of security, economy and values," she said, referring to the common market as Europe's greatest value.

Mihhail Kõlvart said that the EU is moving in a direction where it will need to abandon the principle of unanimity in order to retain its decision-making capacity and speed. "I do not believe this to be in Estonia's interests," he said and described it as surrendering a part of sovereignty.

"Should Ukraine join the EU today, a considerable part of the EU's agricultural subsidies, around €70 billion, would go to Ukraine," Kõlvart said, adding that this would cause Estonia's subsidies to fall by 20 percent.

But Marina Kaljurand said that abolishing the consensus principle is justified in crisis situations. "I would also say that the EU's strength lies in its unity. The goal needs to be to achieve consensus and unanimity in voting, but in the situation today, where every time Ukraine aid or sanctions come up, we have to engage in horse trading and make concessions to [Viktor] Orban, a line needs to be drawn somewhere."

Riho Terras said that Orban's money should be taken away until he falls in line. "Orban's behavior is contrary to sense," he remarked.

The Isamaa MEP also said that new EU members need to be subjected to the same rules Estonia was, but added that EU enlargement is a security matter for Estonia.

Jury gives win to Marina Kaljurand

The judges, Anvar Samost (ERR), foreign observer Clyde Kull, political scientist Martin Mölder, political observer Põim Kama, communication expert Raul Rebane and political scientist Tõnis Saarts, gave the win to MEP Marina Kaljurand who received a score of 27 points after the candidates were evaluated on a scale of 1-5 by each of the judges. Kaljurand got the maximum five points from four of the six judges.

The judges largely agreed that the debate was interesting, comprehensive and professional, and that the participants' knowledgeability and level of preparedness were strong.

--

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