Prime Minister Jüri Ratas (Center) said both the coalition and its opposition have an equal right to defend their politics in parliament. I sincerely believe that all parties must retain balance and respect in a situation such as this. On one side, the weight of the Riigikogu s majority is on one scale, along with an opportunity to pass their policies and the opposition sits on the otherside with the right to stop it by using parliamentary options, the prime minister and Center Party leader wrote in a letter to ERR about the fiery arguments in Riigikogu about the planned referendum on the definition of marriage.
Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise says that whether the Supreme Court has the last word on the legal status of a bill which would enact a referendum on the definition of marriage will be clearer after the Riigikogu has voted on it, adding that the court could well hold the key to proceedings.
Madise told news portal Delfi (link in Estonian) that the result of a referendum is binding on state bodies, but that MPs can vote in accordance with their consciences. However, the [Supreme] court should make its decision based on the will of the people, she said.
The question in the planned referendum, as to whether marriage should be defined in Estonian legislation as between one man and one woman, could have an answer in either the affirmative or the negative and be in accordance with the Constitution, but that this would be complex to carry out in actuality.
The confrontation between the coalition and opposition has become so sharp to have resulted in direct disregard for valid legal norms. It is especially shameful it has taken place in the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee, Rait Maruste writes.
Blatantly ignoring the Riigikogu Rules and Procedures Act is unconstitutional because § 3 subsec. 1 of the Estonian Constitution clearly provides that State authority is executed based exclusively on the Constitution and constitutional acts.
Obstructionism is hardly new or unheard-of in civilized parliamentarism. It is more common in Anglo-American politics, while it has also been wielded in Europe, in France and the United Kingdom.
Methods differ, ranging from giving hours-long speeches (filibustering), to taking a very long time to walk to the rostrum (cow walk) and introducing a massive number of amendment proposals to clog up proceedings.
The most responsible thing politicians could do would be to agree on a compromise that would see the marriage question put up for referendum as a bill as opposed to a matter of national significance. Failure to secure the people s support for the bill would result in the president declaring extraordinary elections.
I am writing as an Estonian citizen who is relatively confused and worried. I have kept a close eye on proceedings of the draft resolution for protecting the concept of marriage in the Riigikogu.
The situation right now (the article was published on Saturday, January 9 – ed.) seems to be that the opposition s obstruction tactic has completely paralyzed the work of the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee that is in charge of processing the bill.
On Friday, Speaker of the Riigikogu Henn Põlluaas (EKRE) gave his annual New Year Address on ETV and said the government "will do our best for it to be better than last year."