By Plenary Sessions: Mario Kadastik

The confrontation centers on refuting the opponents' claims, particularly regarding the immediate hundreds of millions in costs associated with the nuclear project and the assertion that the developer lacks outside support. The criticism is aimed at the substance of the policy and its factual accuracy, not at a personal level.

Insufficient data.

The primary conflict arose with the Centre Party faction concerning their proposed amendments regarding the provisions for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Although the committee attempted to substantively address the issues raised by the Centre Party, their proposals No. 8 and No. 14 failed to gain support. The disagreement was primarily procedural, as the Centre Party wanted the proposals to be officially marked as "not taken into account."

The opposing side is treated neutrally as procedural parties, noting the receipt of the amendment proposal submitted by the Isamaa faction and its discussion within the committee. Criticism or attacks are absent; the opposition's contribution is handled as part of the routine legislative process.

The opposition is aimed at the proposals put forward by the respected rapporteur concerning the total control of the internet and mandatory authentication. The criticism is fundamental, branding the proposed control measures as totalitarian and impractical.