By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

Insufficient data.

The speeches focus on criticizing the government and holding it accountable. There are no references to cooperation, willingness to compromise, or bipartisan action.

There is insufficient data. The speaker is associated with direct confrontation in this context, and there are no signs indicating cooperation.

The style of cooperation indicates the common conviction of the inner circle (the faction) on the transport issue ("our conviction") and points to the support for the arguments from colleagues (Leo Kunnas) during the abortion debate. Data is missing regarding cross-party cooperation or readiness for compromise.

Domestically, there is a lack of readiness for cooperation because the speaker deems the draft legislation unconstitutional and dangerous. Internationally, however, the speaker urgently calls for unity and cooperation, emphasizing that Estonia should not take the first step, but that the European Union should act in unison to disperse the risks.

Not enough data

Insufficient data.

The speaker is prepared to support proposals from colleagues or institutions (the Chancellor of Justice) aimed at solving problems. At the same time, the speaker utilizes this support as a platform to raise deeper and broader legal issues, calling upon institutions (the Constitutional Committee) to reflect on them.

The speaker actively calls for cross-factional cooperation—urging everyone to sit down together and discuss the reliability of elections—stressing that the issue is far too important to be reduced to mere party politics. He welcomes critical questions posed by coalition MPs as a positive step toward a substantive discussion. He makes positive reference to the practice of the 1990s, when the best solutions were sought by transcending factional lines.

A collaborative style is evident within the opposition group itself, referencing the amendments proposed by colleagues (Siim Pohlak, Arvo Aller, Martin Helme, Varro Vooglaid), which they improperly attempted to bundle together. There is absolutely no indication of openness to compromise with the ruling coalition; communication is purely confrontational and insists on procedural correctness.

There is no information regarding cooperation. All statements made are either a direct confrontation with the Prime Minister or procedural criticism aimed at a colleague.

Not enough data

There is not enough data.

The style of collaboration is primarily confrontational and demanding, directed at the opposing party. Mention is made of a colleague’s (Priit Sibul) earlier reference to the inappropriate timing of the proceedings, which indicates a certain internal consistency. There is no reference to broader cross-party cooperation or seeking compromise with the government.