By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

Strong opposition to the economic policy and budget of Kristen Michal's government, which the speaker considers to be deepening stagnation and inequality. This viewpoint is presented forcefully, focusing on the government's poor economic results and drawing a comparison to the stagnation of the late Soviet Union era (Leonid Brezhnev). The speaker calls for public intervention to terminate this era.

This political stance heavily emphasizes government accountability, demanding that ministers report transparently and criticizing their absence during the crisis (specifically citing the Minister of Agriculture). It also criticizes the Riigikogu’s internal rigidity regarding resource allocation and the premature termination of debates, calling for greater flexibility. These positions are primarily procedural and performance-based, stressing that members of parliament are, in effect, the ministers' employers.

The political stance is strongly oppositional, focusing its criticism on the incompetence and lack of transparency displayed by the government (especially Prime Minister Michal) regarding security and state governance issues. The speaker accuses the government of distrusting the public and Parliament and demands honest and prompt reporting on security incidents. He views the government’s recent actions (wage increases) as a forced measure, stemming from a catastrophic lack of public trust and the looming threat of social explosion.

The speaker is challenging Estonia's current fiscal policy, deeming the country's low debt ratio (24.1%) illogical, especially given the serious social problems and poverty. This position is results-based, emphasizing that Estonia is behaving in direct contrast to all other Eurozone countries. He/She criticizes the chosen direction for failing to solve existing problems.

The political position is strongly oppositional, criticizing the government’s legislation as unconstitutional, lax, and motivated by a desire for control. The speaker emphasizes the need for specific and substantive laws and supports practical measures related to national defense and security (e.g., shelters). The stance is value-based, focusing on the protection of constitutionality and democratic freedoms against surveillance.

The most striking issue is the credibility of the governing coalition, which is assessed as exceptionally low. The viewpoint is strongly confrontational and centers on criticizing the government’s actions and conduct (presence). The political framework is based more on performance and values (trust, respect).

The political platform is strongly opposed to state surveillance and excessive data collection (the creation of a "super database"), with a clear emphasis on civil liberties. He obstinately criticizes the reintroduction of the bill that the president had previously vetoed, and resists any yearning for "thought policing." His framework is clearly value-driven, centered on restricting state power and protecting privacy.

Strong opposition to the government’s centralization policy, especially in the fields of culture and education, and to the prioritization of defense spending over social spending. The political focus is on efficiency and the value-based defense of the quality of life in the provinces, demanding salary increases for domestic cultural workers ahead of foreign aid. The government’s activities are criticized as "mismanagement" and a system in the "rotten tree" stage.

The political stance is highly critical of the government's haste regarding the creation of the "super database," a project which the President had previously scrapped. The criticism targets procedural shortcomings, specifically the failure to consult the Financial Supervision Authority, and also points to a failure based on the resulting outcome.

The political stance is strongly oppositional, focusing on the government's ethics and actions, criticizing the minister's arrogant behavior and the financial favors involved in the Health Insurance Fund case. Furthermore, the coalition's legislative procedures are vigorously opposed, which are characterized as a "steamroller" and a lack of consensus. Significant concern is also raised regarding youth unemployment and the ideological polarization concerning the future of the Estonian people.

The political position is strongly critical of the government's actions, centering on the mismanagement of economic indicators. The most salient issues are record inflation and youth unemployment. The criticism targets the prime minister's personal failure to resolve the situation, characterizing the current administration as a period of negative records.

The political stance is strongly anti-government, particularly targeting the Ministry of Defense. He/She sharply criticizes the disarray and inefficiency within national defense, citing findings from the National Audit Office. He/She advocates for a more realistic and action-oriented defense policy, pointing to Finland as a model, in contrast to the government's "boasting clique." Furthermore, he/she highlights concerns regarding fear of war and low defense readiness, which stem from a sense of uncertainty. The entire political framework is heavily focused on criticizing the government's activities and performance.

The political position is strongly anti-government, focusing on protecting the interests of rural communities and small producers, and criticizing the state's governance style. They most vehemently oppose cuts to small subsidies (such as beekeeping) and the reduction of vital regional services (bank offices, notaries), while large amounts of public funds are being spent uncontrollably elsewhere. The criticism is primarily aimed at the government's lax management style and its failure to ensure the preservation of Estonian culture and language in the context of immigration.

The focus is on criticism of the government's actions, particularly concerning rural affairs and cultural policy. He sharply criticizes the unjust implementation of austerity measures, which favors large players (such as beekeepers' subsidies), as well as the double standards employed in relations with Russia (intensive gas trade versus aggressive rhetoric). His political stance is strongly value-based, stressing justice and the critical importance of the state's memory institutions. Furthermore, he criticizes the coalition's approach to rural issues, specifically their attempt to postpone the Minister of Agriculture's address until a time of low visibility (the 'dark time').