EKRE faction MP Varro Vooglaid, who spoke at Wednesday's budget debate in the Riigikogu, stated that there is great disorganization in the preparation of the budget and the opinion of the opposition is not taken into account in this process. "To begin with, I must say that of course I completely, one hundred percent, agree with my colleague Martin Helme's assessment that there is no particular point for us as opposition MPs to talk about anything here, because it is known that parliamentarism in Estonia is completely balanced and the opposition MPs can create some impressions that we are trying to do something here to criticize or to work against, but everyone knows that the train goes on its way and that absolutely nothing depends on what we are talking about here. So this is not a particularly motivating situation. And the fact is, of course, that I don't have much to add to what has already been said in various speeches, but I will highlight one aspect that has been very important to me here in recent weeks. However, by way of introduction, a couple of quick comments that particularly bother me with all the rhetoric we are constantly presented with. First, the reformist rhetoric about fixing Estonia's finances. I'm not a financial professional, far from it, but people who are financial professionals laugh about it too. It is widely laughed at and taken seriously by no one. It is like some kind of theater performance that is presented here, pathos speeches are given. But what about fixing finances are we talking about? First of all, we point out that those people who know anything about economics and finance know that taxes should not be raised during a recession, because in that case you actually worsen the deficit of the state budget, according to all assumptions, and not reduce it, because competitiveness decreases even more, tax revenue will fall even more, and if at the same time they are not able to cut the state's spending side, it is obvious that the deficit will deepen even more. So it is not necessary to be foresight at all to understand that this is exactly how this thing will turn out. As for getting the finances in order, I'll come back to what I mentioned that impressed me. I am referring to the speech given by the state auditor Janar Holm last week in this very parliament, a very appreciable, very clear and powerful speech, where he pointed out that the way the state budget is made is about everything other than fixing Estonia's finances. I think that the state auditor Holm's position could be summed up in the shortest way, that there is a real mess when making the state budget. I'm quoting from his presentation last week. In the case of the state budget, the most important thing is not what we call the way of presenting it, but that it is possible to understand clearly from the budget where the money is coming from and where it is going, and what should ultimately result from it for the benefit of all of us. And in retrospect, it must be possible to later read from the lines about these allocations of money, whether this money went to what it was intended for, whether we got what we wanted with the allocation of money, and if we didn't, why. The experience of countries shows that different elements are used simultaneously in budgets. By delving into the content of the annual budgets of some countries, which are considered classic, it is possible to find even more elements of activity-based than in Estonia's so-called activity-based budget. The question is the appropriateness, expediency, implementation capability and skills of the approach. I have also touched on the fact that there is a problem with the transparency of the state budget, i.e. with the understanding of who, how much and for what money is allocated in the budget, all six times in my speech in front of the Riigikogu, six years in a row. Over the past few years, many others have also pointed to problems related to the current state budget's lack of transparency: the president, the chancellor of justice, entrepreneurs, analysts, journalists, and also some members of the Riigikogu who are more than usual interested in the topic. In response to this criticism, the state budget has been supplemented at the level of the law, and the explanatory letter has indeed been made more meaningful. But the main problem remains: from the budget and its explanatory letter, it is not possible to clearly identify to whom, how much and for what the money is allocated. There are fragments, but not the whole. End of quote. I'm not going to waste any more of your time, asking for extra time to make my speech. I think the quote that was highlighted is already exhaustive. There is no point in talking nonsense about fixing the public finances when there is such a mess. If there was a real desire to put the state's finances in order, I would like to see a serious effort based on the goal that next year's state auditor would no longer have to talk like this in front of the Riigikogu."