By Plenary Sessions: Jaak Aab

A direct opposition stance is not evident—rather, it's constructive criticism and the raising of concerns. It does not attack personally, but focuses on systemic issues and funding questions.

The text sharply criticizes Minister Pakosta's actions, accusing her of banning officials from working on the matter and sabotaging the preparation of the draft legislation. It is claimed that intense lobbying and influence peddling occurred concerning the competition law. The role of the Bar Association is also criticized; it is treated as an expert body when it is merely an interest group. The opposition's critique is specific and personalized, focusing heavily on procedural violations.

The speaker sharply criticizes the Reform Party and the Eesti 200 government, accusing them of hindering competition supervision and serving the interests of monopolistic enterprises. He/She expresses particularly strong criticism towards Liisa-Ly Pakosta and points to possible undue influence. The speaker calls upon members of the Reform Party to rediscover their former resolve and not support the current draft bill.

The speaker directs sharp criticism at law firms, accusing them of lobbying for monopolistic enterprises and inciting litigation purely for personal gain. They also express doubt regarding the transparency of the minister and the political party Eesti 200 throughout the legislative process.

The speaker sharply criticizes the Reform Party and Eesti 200, accusing them of making U-turns and demonstrating a lack of principles. He claims that Eesti 200 has consistently stalled the adoption of the competition law and that the bar association is lobbying in the name of specific interests. Criticism is also aimed at Kristen Michal's government, which is accused of governing purely for the sake of governing and prioritizing the retention of the prime minister's portfolio.

Offers guarded criticism of Ministry of Justice officials, citing discrepancies between their public statements and their actual actions. The criticism is not personal, but procedural in nature, focusing on the lack of transparency and consistency in dealings with the European Commission.

It directly criticizes the current government over its foreign labor policy, arguing that the policy fails to align with expert recommendations. The criticism is primarily political, focusing on the lowering of wage requirements and the potential negative impact this could have on productivity. Cooperation is not ruled out, but better planning and consideration are demanded.

Based on the limited data, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the opposition's stance.

Due to the insufficiency of data, it is impossible to identify a specific opposition stance.

They do not express direct opposition, but rather pose constructive questions aimed at clarifying government policy. They also voice indirect concern about the implementation of the long-term care reform, but instead of sharp criticism, they focus on seeking solutions to improve the situation.