By Plenary Sessions: Kalle Grünthal

The primary adversaries are the proponents of the draft legislation and the chairman of the Constitutional Committee. The criticism leveled is largely procedural (violations of sound legislative practice, undue haste) and intellectual, accusing the opposing party of incompetence and a lack of understanding of key legal principles (e.g., *ultima ratio*). There is no readiness for compromise, given the insistence on strict adherence to procedural rules.

The criticism is aimed at the current Riigikogu Rules of Procedure, which restrict the speaking rights of non-affiliated members during the third reading. This constitutes a procedural objection highlighting the system's unfairness, rather than a personal attack.

The main opponents are key government figures (Minister of the Interior Lauri Läänemets, Prime Minister Kristen Michal) and the police leadership, who are accused of establishing a political police force and grossly violating established norms. Criticism is also aimed at Riigikogu member Andre Hanimägi, who is accused of legal illiteracy and trampling on the memory of national heroes. The attacks are intense, accusing the opponents of being anti-nationalist.

The main confrontation is directed against the ruling coalition, which is accused of violating the law, pursuing a state-destroying financial policy, and ignoring the opposition. The criticism is intense and accusatory, claiming that the government is sneering at the opposition and awaiting the suppression of demonstrations. Compromise has been ruled out because parliamentary means have been declared exhausted.

The primary criticism is aimed at the government, which is held accountable for the consequences of the critical infrastructure failure and for compensating the resulting damage. The critique is rooted in policy and performance, stressing the government's duty to ensure that citizens are compensated for losses incurred.

The opposition is targeting the government, the Ministry of Climate, and the bill’s rapporteur (Igor Taro), accusing them of dishonesty and concealing the real information. The speaker also sharply criticizes the European Union/Brussels ("by the other union"), viewing them as an external force intent on seizing Estonia’s natural resources. The criticism is both political and procedural, specifically accusing the bill of being hidden within an "omnibus package."

The main opponents are coalition MPs and medical scientists (e.g., Professor Irja Lutsar), who are being criticized for failing to grasp the content of the draft bill and for setting the wrong priorities. The criticism is intense and addresses both procedural issues (like not reading the bill) and moral aspects, directly challenging their competence.

The opposition is directed both at the government and at specific political parties and individuals. He/She sharply criticizes the low approval rating of Eesti 200 and the procedural incompetence of Reform Party members (e.g., Toomas Kivimägi) during the vote. The criticism is both politically substantive (regarding VAT) and personal and procedural (referring to navigating the chamber).

The main adversaries are the Reform Party and Eesti 200, both part of the ruling coalition, who are intensely criticized for breaking election promises and engaging in political deception. The critique is both personal and procedural, further accusing the government of non-transparent management of state finances and a complete lack of oversight.

The main adversaries are the European Union Affairs Committee (ELAK) and the Government of the Republic, who are criticized for violating the constitutional order and usurping the parliament's decision-making power. The criticism is intense and focuses on procedural deficiencies, directly questioning whether the parliament has become bicameral.