By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

The main opponents are the government and the minister, who are being criticized for submitting poor-quality legislation and avoiding substantive debate. The criticism is intense and focuses on procedural shortcomings (the lack of an impact assessment) and substantive immaturity, accusing the government of submitting "junk." There is no willingness to compromise, and they are demanding the bill be completely rewritten.

The criticism is primarily aimed at the ministries and ministers (the Minister of Justice, the Ministry of Digital Affairs) for preparing an unclear and inadequate draft bill, particularly concerning the technical details. Also criticized are the delays in the legislative process and the use of political tactics to "let drafts die" (such as the Children's Day bill). Marko Pomerants' past actions and Aivar Kokk's absence during the discussion are also noted.

The main opponents are government leaders Kristen Michal and Finance Minister Ligi, who are accused of poor governance and a lack of public trust. Criticism is also directed at the Finance Minister’s conduct, specifically his meddling and the racist expression "with his own white hand." Furthermore, there is opposition to the government’s socio-political focus, which is seen as excessively emphasizing the rights of homosexual people.

He/She strongly opposes those colleagues who voted in favor of creating the unconstitutional super database, accusing them of hypocrisy and of moving toward a preemptive state. The criticism is aimed at the political inconsistency and the repercussions of earlier decisions, which ultimately led to the President rejecting the bill.

The primary opponent is Finance Minister Jürgen Ligi and the government, who face intense criticism both for their policies (specifically, the refusal to lower VAT) and for alleged personal statements. The speaker attacks the opposing side's motives, claiming the minister views the populace as "stupid and fat." This resistance is characterized as persistent and "evasive at all costs."

The main opponents are the government coalition (referred to as the "long plan party") and the leadership of the European Commission, particularly Baroness von der Leyen. The criticism is intense and targets both the substance (EU budget priorities) and the procedure (the Riigikogu acting as a rubber stamp and the rushing of debates). The government is accused of losing the public's trust and moving away from a democratic rule of law towards a "sovereign state."

The primary confrontation is aimed at the government and ministers, who stand accused of hubris, budgetary imprecision, and setting the wrong priorities. The criticism is both substantive (concerning political decisions) and procedural, highlighting the chaos in the chamber and the absence of ministers (for example, the finance minister when Urmas Reinsalu poses a question). There is no articulation of a search for compromise; instead, the government's failures are stressed.

The main opponents are the government (ministers and their parties) and the Riigikogu Board. The government is criticized for its policies (VAT, social issues) and incompetence, with specific examples highlighted, such as combining the Clyde Kulli case and the compensation for tanker damages into a single draft bill. The Board is criticized for its procedural decisions, particularly for discussing important topics late at night.

The main opponent is the Minister of Finance, who is criticized both for policy (the complexity of documents, the meaninglessness of metrics) and for personal behavior. The criticism is intense and includes accusations of arrogantly insulting colleagues and considering himself the "ruler of an empire." There is no willingness to compromise; on the contrary, the cessation of the minister's behavior is demanded.

The main opponents are the coalition parties and specific ministers (the Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Interior), who are accused of incompetence and wasting resources. Criticism is aimed at both policy (the prison deal, tax policy) and procedure, stressing that the government only begins searching for sensible solutions after the intervention of the President or the Chancellor of Justice. The attacks are intense, and no possibility for compromise is offered.