By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The main opponents are the parties forming the government coalition, who stand accused of acting against the interests of Estonian society and instead serving narrow corporate interests. The criticism is extremely intense, ranging from standard political opposition to accusations that bear the hallmarks of fraud. The speaker is even considering appealing to the State Prosecutor's Office, a move that would completely rule out any compromise.

Strong opposition is directed at the Republic Electoral Committee (VVK) and the head of the Election Service, Arne Koitmäe. Koitmäe is accused of deliberately misleading the public regarding election procedures, and he is considered a security risk and a threat to democracy. The criticism is intense, focusing both on procedural violations (the public nature of meetings) and shortcomings in system security.

The criticism is aimed at the current decision-making process, which fails to take into account the opinions of local residents and risks simply steamrolling them. The opposition is procedural, demanding greater transparency and public involvement to prevent a situation where decisions are made without public consent.

The opposition is aimed at those who are planning offshore wind farms without the consent of the public and local communities. The criticism is both procedural (a lack of democracy) and economic (the allocation of subsidies), emphasizing that this is far too serious an issue to be decided without public participation.

The opposition is aimed at members of the ruling coalition (such as colleagues Timpson and Sutrop), who are being accused of hypocrisy and knowingly adopting legislation that violates the constitution. The criticism is both substantive (policy-based) and procedural, highlighting how previous warnings (for example, those made by Rene Kokk) were callously voted down.

Strong opposition to the government and the ruling coalition, criticizing them both for their policy choices (raising taxes, attacking large families and homeowners) and for procedural failures (lying, hiring a PR firm). They are further accused of staunchly defending the banking sector and increasing security threats. The criticism is intense and fundamental, precluding any possibility of compromise.

Criticism has been directed against the government and the responsible ministry due to a lack of transparency regarding the distribution of 100 million euros to the Estonian defense industry. The attacks are procedural and include implications of potential conflicts of interest, directly questioning the involvement of former high-ranking officials with the companies that received the funding.

The confrontation is directed against the bill’s presenter or supporter, who is being criticized for inaccurately presenting the content of the law (specifically, claiming there is a lack of sanctions). The criticism is intense and fact-based, demanding a public admission from the opponent that their previous assertions were false.