By Plenary Sessions: Martin Helme

The main adversary is the ruling coalition, especially the Reform Party, which is accused of trampling on legitimate expectations and the hypocrisy inherent in stripping citizens of their rights (citing the COVID era, restrictions on free speech, and limitations placed on the rights of gun owners). The criticism is both political and procedural, accusing the coalition of ramming the constitutional bill through "by brute force" and "spitting in the face" of the opposition.

The primary adversary is the governing coalition, particularly the Prime Minister's party, which is criticized both for its substance (the deterioration of the constitution) and its procedure (arrogant behavior and insufficient electoral support). The coalition is accused of violating the principle of constitutional law and serving the interests of the aggressor state. The intensity of the attack is high, but the necessity of seeking a compromise is acknowledged.

The main opponents are the Reform Party and the liberal regime, who stand accused of destroying the Estonian economy and abolishing parliamentarism. The criticism is intense, focusing both on the political substance (tax hikes, a corrupt budget) and procedural violations (the subsequent reallocation of the budget, disregarding the rules of procedure). The speaker rejects compromise, proposing that the budget either be rejected or the proceedings terminated.

The main opponent is the Reform Party-led government, and specifically Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, who is accused of incompetence, spreading false propaganda, and cynically stoking panic. The criticism is both political (weakening security) and personal/procedural (laughing, avoiding discussion, and labeling critics as "Putinists"). There is no readiness for compromise, as it is emphasized that political discussion has been impossible for three years.

The opponents are those who support the funding of abortion through the Health Insurance Fund, and especially those colleagues who justify the necessity of abortion due to the financial hardship of the parents. The criticism is intense and philosophical, accusing the opposing side of eugenic thinking and promoting the logic of destroying human life.