By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

The opposition is aimed at the initiators of the bill and the rapporteur, who seek to impose restrictions on participation in local elections. The criticism is intense, focusing on the unjustified nature of the policy and the limitation of people's choices. The speaker questions the elevation of political parties as the foundation of society and points to their inherent instability.

The main criticism is aimed at the Isamaa party and Priit Sibul, who advised against supporting the flexibility bill. The criticism is policy-based, accusing opponents of obstructing progress and the inefficient use of taxpayer money, a problem that has persisted for over a decade. There is also general criticism directed at state-level duplication and the handling of matters that are simply beyond Estonia's capacity.

It does not directly criticize any opposing side or political grouping, but emphasizes that providing military aid is an action that "everyone should do."

The main criticism is aimed at banks, which are accused of earning excessive profits at the expense of borrowers and demonstrating insufficient solidarity with society. He/She indirectly criticizes the agreement reached within the coalition regarding the replacement of the bank tax, deeming it questionable due to the timing and the reduction of capital. Furthermore, he/she rejects the criticism from Martin Helme (EKRE) regarding the Social Democrats' alleged 180-degree reversal on the bank tax issue.