By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The speaker represents the views of their parliamentary group and is prepared to defend their positions (for example, in the National Defense Committee). However, they express skepticism regarding the utility of such a debate, given that previous arguments have failed to have an impact. Their approach is rather confrontational and focuses on defending constitutional integrity, rather than seeking compromises.

Lack of data

The speaker is open to collaboration, calling for a joint discussion aimed at improving the draft bill and identifying potential amendments. The objective is to collectively discuss what those potential changes might entail.

Little information is available regarding the style of cooperation, but the speaker addresses "dear colleagues" and "the Estonian public," urging them to assess the adequacy and veracity of the prime minister's claims. There are no indications of a willingness to compromise with the government or engage in cross-party cooperation.

Primarily clashing with the heads of the committees, demanding that they acknowledge responsibility and engage in introspection. It refers to cooperation and shared concern with other members of parliament (Urmas Reinsalu, Anastassia, Rain), who also warned against unconstitutionality. It expresses the desire to continue a private discussion on legal issues with the President's legal advisor.

The style of interaction in this context is confrontational, demanding specific answers from the opposing side and rejecting generalizations. There is no data regarding cooperation or a willingness to compromise with other political forces. The speaker focuses on demanding accountability and obtaining information.

The collaborative approach is open to inter-institutional dialogue, actively seeking proposals and solutions from the Chancellor of Justice aimed at raising the competence of the Riigikogu. This indicates a readiness to cooperate with experts in order to resolve institutional problems.

The speaker refers to colleague Martin Helme's previous question, which demonstrates a certain level of cooperation or unity of views with the faction or colleagues holding similar views when addressing the present topic.

Cooperation has been mentioned only in a procedural context, specifically regarding a message from a colleague ("Rain") about withdrawing the question. There is no information about inter-party cooperation or willingness to compromise on substantive issues, as the focus is on strong opposition.

The speaker points to similar questions and concerns raised by colleagues (Rene Kokk, Reinsalu), suggesting collaboration within the faction or among colleagues who share the same stance. There is no evidence of attempts to seek compromises with the governing coalition partners.

The speaker cooperates with opposition factions, having submitted draft legislation on behalf of members of the EKRE and Center Party parliamentary groups, for example, concerning the appeal to the Venice Commission. This cooperation is aimed at achieving common goals in the interest of the opposition, but there is absolutely no sign of any readiness to compromise with the coalition. The style is rather confrontational and legally demanding.