By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

No direct opposition or criticism is expressed; the speaker limits themselves to presenting the facts. It is only mentioned that the motion to conclude the second reading received three opposing votes, but the motives of those opponents are neither analyzed nor criticized.

The criticism is directed at the discussion led by the Ministry of Culture, given that the topics of e-sports and the gaming industry have "not surfaced there at all." This is a moderate, issue-based opposition to the focus of the current debate, and not a personal attack.

The primary opposition is aimed squarely at the Reform Party, whose "dogmas" and "narratives" are viewed as obstacles to fact-based policy-making and price reduction. Furthermore, the specific respondent (Mr. Laats) is criticized for failing to provide a substantive answer and for simply reading from notes. The critique targets both the political substance and the procedure itself.

The primary criticism is aimed at the government and the Ministry of Justice, citing the violation of social dialogue, ineffective legislative drafts, and a bureaucratic approach. The criticism is intense, focusing on both procedural and substantive errors, such as the conflict with the European Court of Justice ruling found within the draft Employment Contracts Act. Furthermore, the state's initial statements regarding the Pihlakodu case are also criticized for having offended the public's sense of justice.

The criticism is aimed at the president's earlier decision to veto the law, citing its unfair justification. The legislative process is also indirectly criticized for creating a situation where citizens are forced to appeal to the administrative court. The criticism is both political and procedural.