By Plenary Sessions: Raimond Kaljulaid

The speaker indirectly takes a stand against Urmas Reinsalu and Jaak Valge, whose arguments opposing the change in voting age are evidently linked to the correlation between age and competence. Reinsalu’s procedural concern regarding the timing of the discussion on election organization—specifically, holding it right before the elections—is also acknowledged, but this is deemed insignificant at the first reading stage.

The criticism is aimed at the opponents of the bill who are employing scare tactics and warning against provoking Russia, calling this argument baseless. The primary opposing force is Russia, which is considered the only party that stands to lose if the bill is adopted.

The opposition is being sharply criticized, with their motion of no confidence being labeled as part of an election campaign that does not warrant serious attention. The criticism focuses on the procedure itself and the lack of substantive arguments, given that the opposition has failed to highlight any genuine issues in the management of the reform. A specific opponent, Toomas Uibo, is being challenged for overemphasizing a historical claim.