By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The opposition's stance is extremely intense, demanding the resignation of the Minister of Internal Affairs due to unlawful activity (the Lihula monument). The criticism targets both political ambitions (MPÕK) and personal credibility, accusing ministers of lying and unethical conduct. The speaker also criticizes the internal cooperation within the coalition, dismissing it as mere political theater.

The key adversaries are the government and its members (the Prime Minister, Interior Minister Läänemets), who face criticism both for legal transgressions (the police actions in Lihula) and for unjust economic policies (specifically, renewable energy subsidies). The criticism is intense, accusing the government of violating the sanctity of private property and of the wasteful channeling of taxpayer money toward profitable enterprises.

The main opponents are commercial banks, who are accused of raking in unearned profits, and those who prioritize investor appeal over protecting the public. The opponents’ views are being discredited by pointing to the salaries of SEB analysts, which allegedly prevents them from objectively understanding the situation. The criticism is intense and carries an ethical undertone.

The main opponents are the government (for obstructing the Lihula monument and for their planned hate speech legislation) and specific colleagues. Jürgen Ligi was personally and intensely attacked, accused of "vulgar lying" regarding his comments on a female colleague's appearance, and was demanded to man up and apologize. The government's actions regarding the Lihula matter are considered "shameful" and rights-violating.

The main confrontation is with the government, whose answers are considered contradictory, confusing, and insufficient. Criticism is directed both at the government’s procedural incompetence (a violation of the constitution) and the belittling of those posing the questions. The speaker intensifies the confrontation by asking whether the government’s disparaging attitude also extends to the Chancellor of Justice and the Auditor General.

The confrontation is aimed at the bill's proponents (the government), who are accused of promoting anti-family ideology and lying in the explanatory memorandum. The criticism is intense and ideologically charged, questioning the opposing side's goals to alter family models through legislation. There is no willingness to compromise, as the draft bill is being called "completely nonsensical."

The speaker is clearly in an opposition role, criticizing the commission and the coalition for their failure to prevent a situation where convicted pedophiles could work with children. The criticism targets both the substance of the policy and procedural loopholes, demanding an explanation from their opponents as to why the necessary amendments were not introduced.

Strong opposition is aimed at the government and state officials, who are criticized for a lack of transparency, lack of accountability, and wasting taxpayer money. The criticism is systemic, calling into question the integrity of the electoral system and the government's mandate. No willingness to compromise has been expressed; instead, concrete answers and accountability are being demanded.

The opposition is aimed at the government’s tax policy, particularly the plan to implement a new motor vehicle tax, which the speaker argues duplicates the existing excise duty. Criticism is also directed at previous governments for failing to restore the connection between fuel excise duty and road funding, and demands explanations from the responsible minister regarding the proportions of state budget expenditure.