By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

The speaker clearly supports the positions and procedural issues raised by opposition colleagues (such as Jüri Jaanson and Urmas Reinsalu). He/She views the coalition's actions as a "steamroller" that rules out any compromise or substantive cooperation with the opposition, since, in his/her estimation, the proposed amendments are simply being thrown in the trash.

Refers to cooperation with their faction regarding the minister's attendance, and notes similar positions with other deputies concerning the timing of the minister's appearance. Overall, however, the style is rather challenging and demanding towards the leadership of the government and the commission. No direct openness to compromise is evident; rather, accountability is demanded.

Although generally critical, the speaker sincerely praises Prime Minister Michal’s initiative to establish the council of economic advisors, viewing it as a positive step toward involving experts. He/She also supports the proposal put forward by colleague Helmen Kütt (SDE) to bring party leaders together with the Prime Minister for a genuine discussion, emphasizing the critical need for cooperation.

There are no direct references to cooperation with other factions or seeking compromise on political issues. However, the speaker offers assistance to the chair in resolving a technical issue (sending the picture of the President of the Bank of Estonia), demonstrating a readiness to provide procedural assistance.

The style of cooperation is mostly confrontational and critical, but the speaker points to the possibility of collaborating on specific, consensus-driven issues (e.g., the draft bill for establishing shelters). He/She stresses that they should focus on "small, manageable tasks" where party affiliation is not important.

Neither cooperation nor a willingness to compromise is expressed; the context is rather adversarial. The presence of Toomas Järveoja, a colleague from the Reform Party, is mentioned neutrally, highlighting his exceptional nature.

He commends the Chancellor of Justice and Kilvar Kessler for their excellent presentations, showing respect for institutional expertise. There is no reference to a bipartisan or cross-factional compromise, focusing instead on attacking the political initiatives of opponents.

It does not indicate direct cooperation with other political parties, but mentions a previous inquiry by colleagues (EKRE) regarding deer. The style is predominantly confrontational and uncompromising, publicly calling on public sector employees (teachers, rescuers, police officers) to strike against the government in order to achieve a pay raise.

The speaker demonstrates an appreciative attitude toward the presenter, praising the clarity and insight of their talk, which indicates a readiness to acknowledge quality work and clear arguments.

There are few direct signs of cooperation, but the speaker references issues and concerns raised by colleagues (Solman, Reinsalu), demonstrating the existence of a certain unified oppositional front. The emphasis is placed more on the lack of consensus and ideological differences within the government (e.g., the 5:4 division on family policy).

Insufficient data.

It recognizes the consensus on the need to defend the Estonian state, but emphasizes major disagreements regarding strategy. There is no reference whatsoever to active cooperation or a willingness to compromise with the government; the style is rather confrontational and accusatory. It refers to the example of Finland to demonstrate how one should interact and operate with neighbors.

The speaker is primarily confrontational, but recognizes positive outcomes when they occur (specifically, the rescue of the Iisaku seedlings, for which both the Minister and the head of RMK are thanked). He/She also references collaboration with other opposition colleagues (Riina Sikkut, Jaak Valge, the Social Democrats) in bringing up the topics of immigration and unemployment, stressing the necessity for a more serious debate.

It demonstrates a readiness and capacity for quick and effective cooperation, citing the positive example of communication with RMK CEO Mikk Marran and Minister Andres Sutt, which resulted in the Iisaku nursery problem being resolved over the course of a single weekend. This clearly indicates a preference for direct and rapid problem-solving.