By Plenary Sessions: Mart Helme

The main opponents are the minister facing the no-confidence vote (Svet) and the coalition, especially the Reform Party. The criticism is both ideological (demanding clarity regarding Putin) and historical/personal, accusing the Reform Party of having former communists and Komsomol members in its ranks. The opposition is vigorously defending its right and duty to initiate the motion of no confidence, labeling the coalition's disparaging rhetoric as malicious and inappropriate.

The main opponents are the Speaker of the Riigikogu and the Board, who are being criticized for introducing a bill to the chamber that is knowingly in violation of the constitution. The criticism is intense and strictly procedural/legal, citing possible sanctions under the rules of procedure and internal order, and even criminal liability under the Penal Code.

The confrontation is aimed at the current government and coalition (the Reform Party and its satellites), which is described as a "system that is corrupt through and through, to its very core." The criticism is intense and wide-ranging, encompassing not only politics but also the actions of the Supreme Court and the Chancellor of Justice, who are allegedly giving their blessing to arbitrary rule. Specific opponents named were Vladimir Svet (who was accused of buying a ministerial post by defecting) and Kristen Michal.

The main opponent is the ruling coalition and prime ministerial candidate Kristen Michal. The criticism is intense and multifaceted, covering the government’s inability to govern, political dishonesty (lying during elections), and incompetence (regarding the tax burden and the green transition). They are also criticizing the composition of the cabinet and the procedural correctness of forming the government.

The opposition is directed at the policies of the governing coalition and specific committees, particularly the Chairwoman of the Finance Committee and the Constitutional Committee. The criticism is intense, focusing both on procedural deficiencies (the lack of a plan) and the detrimental nature of the policy itself (the tax). The speaker does not rule out a compromise, but demands clear and credible action from the opposing side.