By Months: Anti Haugas

While there is no direct criticism, the need is emphasized to be faster and more time-efficient than "some competing regions or countries in Europe."

There are no references to opponents or criticism. The speaker mentions Peeter Ernits's question regarding fines, but it is presented as an informative inquiry, not as opposition.

Insufficient data.

The primary criticism is aimed at the Social Democrats (Sotsid), taking issue with both their political direction (Swedish prison issues, Tanel Kiik's "ideological drift") and their procedural moves. The critic also targets previous governments and interior ministers (including representatives from Isamaa) for 16 years of legal uncertainty regarding the use of license plate recognition cameras. The criticism is predominantly policy- and procedure-based, rather than personal, with the exception of the reference to Kiik's ideological drift.

The primary opposition is aimed at the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate and Patriarch Kirill, who are accused of justifying war crimes and supporting the concept of *russki mir*. The speaker indirectly criticizes those who question the timing of the legislation, referencing Martin Helme, but concedes that the law could have been adopted sooner.

It stands in opposition to the black-and-white position of the Isamaa faction (Jaanus Karilaid) concerning the total closure of borders, pointing out the unresolved issues for Estonian citizens. The critique targets the practical repercussions of the policy and the fact that no solution is offered for citizens who remain stranded beyond the border.

The main opponent is Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, who is sharply criticized for ideological and security reasons and is repeatedly called a war criminal. Criticism is also directed at organizations supporting Kirill's authority, such as the Foundation for the Protection of Family and Tradition, which opposes the achievement of autonomy. A compromise regarding remaining under Kirill’s leadership is ruled out.

The criticism is aimed at those political parties and parliament members who support lowering the VAT on foodstuffs, accusing them of promoting a measure that is both ineffective and costly to the state. The speaker argues that the opponents' proposals primarily enrich merchants and wealthier consumers, rather than helping the target groups who actually need assistance. The opposition is strong and fundamentally policy-driven.