By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

Direct personal criticism is not leveled, but the speaker opposes those who wish to amend the Constitution based on emotion or short-term political expediency. There is clear opposition to the second constitutional amendment bill, which would grant voting rights through international treaties, citing its impracticality and lack of legal clarity. The position that a passport alone demonstrates loyalty to Estonia is also criticized.

The opposition is primarily directed at procedural and practical issues, such as the correctness of the Chancellor of Justice's activities and the impact of the amendment on the courts' workload. Specific opposition was presented by committee members Anti Haugas, Valdo Randpere, and Vilja Toomast, who voted against concluding the first reading. The speaker addresses the counterarguments factually, without resorting to personal attacks.

The confrontation is directed at the rapporteur who seeks to repeal Section 151¹. The criticism is policy-driven, accusing the opponent of appealing to nationalism and utilizing inappropriate anecdotal evidence. The speaker questions the opponent's failure to provide a solution should the regulation be abolished, and rejects the assertion that the regulation itself is responsible for the issues encountered in its implementation.

The objection is directed at the speech given by the Isamaa party, criticizing the irrelevance of its content and its deviation from the subject matter of the bill processed in the Legal Affairs Committee. The criticism is procedural and concerns the selection of topics introduced by Isamaa (main infrastructure routes, tax burden, electricity supply).

Insufficient data.