By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

The primary opposition is directed at the proponents of the bill and the leadership of the Riigikogu, who are being criticized for faulty legislation and the use of an unprecedented fast-track procedure. The criticism is intense, focusing on procedural threats and dangers to the rule of law, with the implication that this constitutes activity dangerous to the state.

The criticism is aimed primarily at the inadequacies of the legislative process and the analysis presented, calling into question the presenter's claims that a short-term delay will not result in anything terrible. The opposition is intense and is rooted in skepticism toward the mitigating assertions that have been made, demanding more detailed data from the government representative regarding the consequences of the delays.

The standoff is directed at the prime minister and the government, criticizing their capacity to internationally promote the e-voting model. The criticism is intense and politically motivated, employing negative comparisons to Venezuela and Russia to underscore the government's failure.

The speaker sharply criticizes the Social Democrats for their aggressive behavior during the debate on the Competition Act and, conversely, for their absence from the discussion regarding the far more crucial RAB Act. He attacks the government's "party faction" (singling out Kristen Michal as "Big Brother") for exhibiting totalitarian tendencies, claiming they are rushing legislation through because of their low public support. Furthermore, he slams Delfi and Eesti Ekspress, calling them mere fulfillers of political orders, which, in his view, is turning Estonia into a "banana republic."

The main criticism is aimed at the actions of the government and the responsible ministers, focusing on the delays in drafting legislation and inefficient work. The criticism is procedural and intense, referencing previous failures (the time of Rainer Vakra) and the departure of the bill drafters. He quotes the Minister of Defence to call into question the appropriateness of the Minister of the Interior's actions.

The primary criticism targets the coalition's "steamroller" tactics and the lack of transparency surrounding the budget process. He/She is particularly harsh on the Social Democrats regarding the penalty bill, accusing them of having a perverse desire for punishment and squandering public funds. Minister Annely, meanwhile, is criticized for ridiculing MPs and outright dismissing the opposition's proposed amendments.

The criticism targets the quality of previous legislation, specifically noting that three acts (the Pre-primary Education Act, the Education Act, and the Food Act) fail to align with one another. Furthermore, the insufficient measurable benefit derived from the reports delivered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is also criticized, thereby calling their practical value into question. The criticism is both procedural and outcome-based.

The criticism is aimed directly at the prime minister and the governing coalition, who are accused of denying reality, lacking public trust, and acting as a "steamroller" in parliament. The criticism is both political (focusing on the economic and demographic crises) and procedural (highlighting the government's extremely low approval ratings despite remaining in power). The speaker offers no compromise, instead demanding the complete dismantling of the current political structure.

The criticism is leveled at the governing parties (Reformierakond, Eesti 200) and the inaction of the ministries, accusing them of the failure to develop necessary financial instruments. He also criticizes the Riigikogu leadership (Lauri Hussar, Marek Reinaas, Urve Tiidus) regarding accountability when bills aimed at improving safety are not supported. More broadly, he criticizes the political culture where opposition bills are sent to the "trash can" under the pretext of lacking an impact analysis.

The criticism is directed at officials of the Ministry of Rural Affairs, who are accused of the unfair distribution of subsidies and poor communication with representatives of beekeepers. More broadly, members of the Riigikogu are criticized for their superficiality when examining the content of budget lines, being called "blind, vain, and superficial."