Obstruction to end in cluster vote

Extraordinary sitting of the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee. Photo: Sander Ilvest

The Riigikogu Constitutional Committee on Sunday decided to send the marriage referendum bill to its second reading with four individual motions to amend pertaining to marriage and a so-called obstruction cluster made up of the opposition’s remaining 9,313 amendment proposals.

Committee chair Anti Poolamets (EKRE) said that the bill will be sent to the floor accompanied by four constructive amendment proposals from the Social Democratic Party (SDE). The remaining motions to amend will be fused together to be voted down as a single cluster. “They were filed for the purposes of obstruction and every MP will retain their right to introduce bills. It is part of good legislative practice to concentrate on the matter introduced,” Poolamets said when explaining the decision to group thousands of proposals.

Protests rejected

Chairman of the opposition Reform Party Kaja Kallas said that such grouping is a flagrant violation of the Riigikogu Rules and Procedures Act. “Identical proposals from the same source can be grouped, while lumping together completely different proposals by different MPs is unacceptable,” Kallas found.

“Every amendment proposal that receives two votes in the committee can be put to a vote on the floor. Grouping the proposals in this manner effectively robs me of my right to have my motions reach the floor,” Kallas explained.

The opposition also filed several protests regarding violation of procedural rules the discussion of which was a separate item on the agenda. The protests suggested the opposition’s right to introduce proposals to amend had been effectively taken away and the work of MPs impeded. Opposition MPs also protested the fact some Constitutional Committee sittings were held online. The coalition’s votes were used to reject all protests.

The bill will now move to the floor where only five votes are needed to remove all amendment proposals. The Constitutional Committee will have to return to the proposals if they are not voted down on Wednesday.

Because the marriage referendum bill is a draft resolution, it can be put to the final vote after its second reading. If the bill is passed, the justice chancellor is within her rights to forward the bill to the Supreme Court provided there are grounds to suspect breach of procedural rules. The Supreme Court would have two months to analyze the legality of the bill.

Procedural criticism

The Constitutional Committee reconvened electronically on Saturday morning after Anti Poolamets was reelected committee chairman and Lauri Läänemets (SDE) its deputy chairman. While Poolamets had said on Friday that no further proposals would be heard on Saturday, the decision was reversed 20 minutes before the chairman election. Kaja Kallas said that her party’s MPs went to bed on Friday knowing that they will not be given a chance to explain their proposals and that they have no intention of doing it after such short notice.

Tõnis Mölder (Center) said that what has been transpiring in the Riigikogu over the last week is to no one’s credit and that the opposition and coalition should try to find common ground before the online sitting so that all MPs could present their proposals in a manner that would allow the parliament’s work to continue.

Poolamets switched off MPs’ microphones at the start of the sitting and was the only one who could switch them back on.

Kallas and Läänemets referred to the practice as muzzling and left the sitting. “We were not given a chance to participate. We refuse to serve as Poolamets’ tools when he says we were present at the sitting. That we didn’t do anything, didn’t say anything and therefore seemingly agreed,” Kallas explained.

Läänemets said that the opposition plans to investigate who ordered the microphones silenced and how it was executed.

“It is now impossible to interrupt. We will give the floor to those who have something constructive to say of whom there were few. Raimond Kaljulaid (SDE) had quite a few objective things to say over several hours, while Reform MPs simply disappeared,” Poolamets said in terms of why the microphones were switched off. The committee chair added that six MPs waited until the evening and Kaljulaid was the only one to elaborate on his amendment proposals online.

Deputy chair of the coalition Isamaa party Heiki Epner saw no problem with how the meeting was held and said that muting the microphones was necessary to ensure order. “We need to find solutions in terms of making working possible. One cannot spend hours talking about absolutely nothing and yelling over others on the floor,” Hepner said.

Controversial proposal withdrawn

Reform Party MPs Urmas Kruuse, Ants Laaneots and Jüri Jaanson introduced a motion to amend that would replace the referendum question with whether life in Estonia would be better if it belonged to the Russian Federation. Jaanson and Valdo Randpere (Reform) also introduced a proposal to ask whether Saaremaa should be surrendered to Latvia.

The amendment proposals were condemned by Prime Minister Jüri Ratas (Center), Minister of Foreign Affairs Urmas Reinsalu (Isamaa), Minister of Finance Martin Helme (EKRE) and coalition MPs of the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee.

“By introducing this proposal, the MPs responsible have violated the oath of office of a member of parliament,” Reinsalu wrote in a comment. He added that the Riigikogu cannot analyze the proposal without MPs clashing with their oath of office. “Our statehood, our republic cannot allow a precedent in which discussing such a proposal could be even remotely constitutional if only formally,” the foreign minister added.

Kruuse, Laaneots and Jaanson withdrew the motion on Saturday. Jaanson wrote on social media that he got carried away in the heat of obstruction. “I later understood the inappropriate nature of the proposal and withdrew my signature. I would also like to apologize to the Estonian public for introducing the inappropriate text. There is no excuse,” Jaanson wrote.

Reform Party chair Kaja Kallas said that MPs were tasked with drawing up 100 motions each the obvious answer to questions in which would be no. She explained that she did not have the time to go over all the proposals herself. It was an on-the-job-accident, however, and as explained by MPs, the aim was to be provocative similarly to EKRE that have made obeisance to Vladimir Putin!” Kallas said.