By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Coordinated opposition at the party level emphasizes the unity and joint proposal of the Centre Party faction. The direct reference to the "Centre Party faction rejection proposal" indicates a structured opposition approach; there are no signs of extensive social or non-public cooperation with other parties.

Emphasis on Inclusion and Cooperation: [They] have drafted amendments together with stakeholders and refer to the coalition's current state of affairs; the Centre Party faction's more than 300 substantive amendments are mentioned; [they] are ready to continue cooperation with other factions and committees, while simultaneously remaining critical of the coalition.

The party/group is not showing a strong readiness for cooperation with the coalition. It stresses the necessity of avoiding the bundling of substantive amendments and the acceptance of limitations on recesses. While it does mention the possibility of involving the Council of Elders in discussions, suggesting some potential for dialogue, the main emphasis remains on protecting the rights and procedures of the opposition. This diplomatic but critical stance on cooperation primarily addresses the procedural aspects of the law.

There is insufficient information regarding cooperation or potential collaboration opportunities.

Emphasizes cooperation with the Ministry and the necessity of coordination; demonstrates willingness for dialogue and partnership.

The speaker demonstrates some capacity for cooperation within the opposition, specifically naming the center faction in the context of rejecting the submitted proposal during the first reading. The address highlights the necessity of reaching a general consensus but fails to show any willingness for broader compromise regarding the substance of the draft bill. It stresses shared values in law enforcement and economic protection.

There is not enough data.

A factional approach; represents the position of the party and the faction, but does not clearly demonstrate readiness for broader cooperation or compromise; the emphasis is on their own position.

Collaborative efforts are being used: amendments are proposed and defended in the Finance Committee; however, the broad coalition is criticized, and they appear jointly in a multi-party context. [This] demonstrates a readiness to participate in discussions, but maintains a central oppositional stance regarding the outcomes. It does not strongly highlight broad bipolarity, but emphasizes the parliamentary mechanism for making improvements through engagement.

It refers to the coalition's internal discussion, but there is no clear indication of readiness for cooperation or compromise. The speaker focuses on emphasizing responsibility and control, rather than constructive partnership; a decline in cooperation is evident against the backdrop of the discussion.

It utilizes the submission of its own legislative drafts and the offering of alternative solutions as a means of cooperation, but it does not demonstrate extensive, close, or high-impact collaboration with other factions. It shows a willingness to cooperate through bills and debates.

The cooperation strategy indicates greater support for the internal faction (with legal analysis conducted internally) instead of establishing a broad coalition with other parties. It mentions approaching the president for external cooperation but fails to emphasize a wider umbrella coalition or reciprocal compromises with other parties.

The criticism carries a negative tone, yet it indicates some willingness to utilize alternative taxes (such as a digital tax or an excess profit tax on banks) and to cooperate on relevant issues via parliamentary inquiries. There is no emphasis on broad coalition compromise, but rather a demonstrable readiness to propose solutions and demand answers.