By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Hussar

The criticism is directed at the shortcomings of the current legislation, which have resulted in public outcry and enabled the use of negative epithets ("a travesty," "a farce") to describe the presidential elections. There is also indirect criticism aimed at those who persistently try to initiate constitutional amendments for direct presidential elections, given that this is not a realistic solution within the current timeframe.

Insufficient data.

No direct confrontation is voiced, but the speaker questions the presiding officer's right to potentially excessive intervention in the minister's reply. The criticism is institutional and procedural, not politically substantive.

The opposition's stance is directed more toward procedural violations than against specific political opponents. The speaker criticizes colleagues who ask off-topic questions during the information session, emphasizing that this is contrary to the law. The criticism is intense and focused on the rules, but it is not personal.

Insufficient data.

Insufficient data

The primary criticism is aimed at the Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and Patriarch Kirill, criticizing their attempts to separate Kirill’s political and spiritual roles. The criticism is substantive and intense, accusing them of misleading the public and promoting the views of Russki Mir (Russian World).

The opposition is focused on the verification of data and claims presented by the rapporteur or earlier speakers, particularly regarding the use of Lithuanian banking taxation as an example. The criticism is purely policy- and data-based, demanding specific figures and tax rates to substantiate the claims.

There is a complete absence of criticism or opposition; the speech is aimed at seeking recognition and requesting constructive cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

There is no direct opposition or criticism aimed at political opponents. The only comparison made is with the Latvians regarding the length of the presidential election process, noting that Estonia held out longer. The criticism is directed more towards the parliament’s previous conduct (for instance, poor attendance in 2014), rather than at political opponents.

There is no direct confrontation; the speaker handles disagreements gently, referring to those who have not signed the initiative as potential supporters. He assumes that their desire is to make things even better, but emphasizes the importance of political agreements.

The primary opposition is directed at the bill's proponent ("Dear Lauri") and his team concerning the procedural deficiencies in the drafting of the legislation. The criticism is intense and grounded in legal arguments, asserting that the bill is an unconstitutional, defective draft that cannot possibly be approved.

No data available.

Insufficient data.

The criticism is aimed at the domestic political infighting in the US, which is viewed as an impediment to assisting Ukraine. Domestic opponents or specific factions are not being criticized; rather, the focus is placed on achieving the common goal.