By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The possibility of cooperation indicates: a desire to merge drafts with the coalition and to take promises seriously; alongside criticism, it has been noted that cooperation is possible if the coalition adheres to its promises.

Demonstrates a willingness to cooperate and a desire for dialogue (it is referenced that the other party has examined the transparency of board expense reimbursements); emphasizes the need to involve and discuss parliamentary financial matters with relevant colleagues.

Although the tone is mainly critical, a certain degree of formal willingness to cooperate is discernible: it refers to the role of committees and negotiations as procedural safeguards (e.g., highlighting that a committee member could address speeches and find answers). However, the main style is oppositional, and when expressing a willingness to cooperate, it demonstrates less flexibility than pragmatic cooperation. It affirms that the transparency of decisions and the presentation of separate laws are necessary.

The approach is primarily critical and questioning; collaboration is shown rather as limited than actively sought. It raises questions and disagreements, but doesn’t reveal specific intentions for broad-based bi- or multiparty cooperation; the emphasis is on observation and questioning the answer.

Data unavailable.

There is no explicitly stated intention of cooperation or bipartisanship; it refers to the commission and previous agenda items and poses questions, indicating participation in the discussion, but there is no clear mention of coalition cooperation or the involvement of opposing viewpoints.

Not enough data.

Not enough data.