By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The primary criticism is directed at the Government of the Republic and the ministers, especially concerning the violation of good legislative practice rules and the introduction of new taxes. The criticism is both policy-based (prioritizing foreign aid) and procedure-based (lack of a formal drafting intent). The new minister is reproached for failing to take responsibility for previous mistakes, with demands that they "go full throttle."

The main opponents are Prime Minister Kaja Kallas and the government implementing the European Union’s climate policy. The criticism is intense and personal (accusing Kallas of destroying the economy) as well as political (claiming climate policy is just a business plan). There is no sign of willingness to compromise; instead, they demand that Estonia’s interests be defended in Brussels and that the prime minister resign.

The main adversaries are the Riigikogu Board and the bill’s presenter (Riho Terras), who are accused of violating the law and adopting illegal decisions. The criticism is predominantly procedural and legal, demanding that the Board respond to the unlawful process. The opposition is intense and uncompromising, emphasizing that the government’s credibility is near zero.

The primary opponents are the government and specific ministers (the Minister of Social Affairs, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Margus Tsahkna), who are criticized both for political accusations (the Kremlin narrative) and procedural violations (a lack of transparency). The confrontation is intensely confrontational, demanding that the minister be called to order and rejecting the government's explanations.

The backlash is aimed at the minister, who is being criticized for his inaccurate assessment of the situation concerning rural libraries. The criticism is policy- and performance-based, claiming that the minister is painting a rosier picture of reality, which justifies strong criticism.

There is no criticism; rather, the focus is on the potential conflict between the Parliament's decision and the outcome of the appeal submitted to the Supreme Court. The confrontation is procedural and legal in nature, rather than personal or political.

The criticism is directed at the diplomat’s actions, which are considered a violation of the law (specifically, Section 74 of the Foreign Service Act) due to interference in the internal affairs of the host country. The confrontation is procedural and legal in nature, focusing on the breach of established norms rather than constituting a personal attack.

The objection is directed at the interpretation of the election procedure presented or applied by the presiding officer of the session, asking why things are being done differently now. The criticism is purely procedural and focuses on the inconsistency of the rules.

The main adversaries are members of the government, who are accused of directly lying to Parliament, and the Prosecutor's Office, whose inaction regarding illegal surveillance activities is being criticized. The criticism is intense and focuses on procedural and ethical violations, demanding accountability.

The opposition is aimed at the decision made by the Riigikogu committee, which demands an absolute majority vote (a majority of the full membership) for the adoption of the bill, and at those defending this stance (Lauri Hussar was named). The criticism is intense and focuses purely on procedural irregularity, accusing the opposing party of acting in contravention of the law.

The main opponents are Prime Minister Kaja Kallas and the government ministers. The criticism is intense, accusing Kaja Kallas of avoiding responsibility and citing the ministers’ incompetence (specifically, their lack of information regarding Macron’s plan). The opposition is active on both the policy level (family benefits, taxes) and the procedural level (the ministers’ apparent ignorance).