By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The criticism is directed at the Government of the Republic and the Minister of Climate, citing a procedural shortcoming—specifically, the absence of a comprehensive planning overview—and demanding clarification regarding the realism of the ambitious energy policy goal. Furthermore, the criticism targets the government’s failure to ensure transparency and the ambiguity surrounding the policy’s feasibility.

The main opponent is the Foreign Minister, whose actions regarding Georgia are deemed intervention contrary to international law and damaging to Estonia's reputation. Strong criticism is also directed at the Speaker of the Riigikogu for bias and violating procedural rules, as they allow the government representative to use baseless accusations ("Kremlin narratives") and engage in misconduct. The criticism is both political and procedural.

The main opponents are the Minister of Justice and the Government of the Republic, who are sharply criticized for violating good legislative practice and failing to conduct constitutional analyses. The criticism is both procedural and political, accusing the government of allowing problems to recur year after year and noting that public confidence in the government has dropped. The speaker also criticizes the bias within the judicial system.

The opposition is directed at the Government of the Republic, criticizing its setting of priorities in wind energy planning (national defense prioritized over health) and the overriding of parliamentary rights when deciding on military missions. The criticism is intense, addressing both the political substance and procedural aspects, and demands a public commitment from the government.

The criticism targets a conceptual flaw in the draft bill concerning the use of a state fee as a form of punishment. The opposition is focused on policy and procedure, stressing that the 800-euro charge essentially corresponds to the description of a fine, not the definition of a state fee.

The criticism targets the assumptions and the approach that dictates phosphorite mining should occur via a concession mechanism. The opposition is rooted in policy and procedure, calling into question the rationality of this approach.

The primary confrontation is directed against the Government of the Republic, which is sharply criticized on moral grounds for funding abortions and is labeled anti-child and anti-family. The criticism is intense and value-driven, calling into question the government's credibility in ensuring the well-being of children.

The main opponents are coalition politicians (including Hanno Pevkur, Alar Laneman, Kalev Stoicescu, Raimond Kaljulaid). They are being criticized both for their political decisions (unconstitutional blank mandates, the security tax) and for unethical behavior (lying, dredging up slanderous rumors). The criticism is intense, and there is no mention of compromise; instead, the demand is that they take their oath of office seriously.

The opposition is directed at the supporters of the current draft bill and, more broadly, at those who create complex norms or fail to take child protection seriously. The criticism is both value-based and procedural, accusing opponents of being purely declarative and neglecting to take necessary simple steps. It also criticizes the Government of the Republic for continuing the state funding of abortion.