By Plenary Sessions: Mario Kadastik

There is insufficient data. (The remark contains neither criticism nor confrontation, but is aimed at clarifying the information.)

Direct opponents are not criticized, but the speaker refutes counterarguments regarding the cost, necessity, and security issues of nuclear energy, relying on analyses and studies. He also criticizes the view that would link the bill's proceedings to the European Parliament elections, dismissing it as coincidental. Furthermore, he warns against excessive reliance on cables and gas power plants after 2040.

There is no direct criticism aimed at political opponents. The speaker challenges the general pessimism among Estonian entrepreneurs and experts when assessing the economy's competitiveness, arguing that this occasionally inhibits operations.

The main confrontation is with the EKRE faction, which is criticized for submitting obstructionist and insincere amendments that hinder the work of the Riigikogu. The criticism is procedural, emphasizing that the submission of a large volume of insincere proposals is not in line with the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act. The opposition's proposals (with the exception of one stylistic proposal by Varro Vooglaid) were disregarded.

There is strong opposition to EKRE’s tactic of challenging the election results, criticizing their lack of success and repeated procedural errors (e.g., the untimely filing of the complaint or addressing the wrong entity). The speaker considers the opponents’ concerns to be merely a political pretext for refusing to acknowledge the election results, rather than a substantive technical problem.

There is no confrontation; the speaker focuses on highlighting the practical and legal ambiguities associated with implementing the draft legislation (such as identifying insurance coverage and transposing limit standards). The criticism is directed more towards unresolved issues than political opponents.

Opposing viewpoints are addressed head-on, comparisons to the Russian system are refuted, and a response is provided to Anastassia's comment regarding the risks of m-elections. The critique is primarily directed at disinformation and hypotheses concerning the system's security, emphasizing that no real incidents have been reported in the past 19 years. It is also stressed that the recommendations of critics (including the OSCE) have always been taken into account.