By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

A strong opposition position regarding rushed legislation; the core of the criticism centers on procedural and legal propriety (specifically, the absence of a drafting intent and impact analysis, and the disregard for constitutional compliance checks). [The opposition] criticizes the interpretations offered by the coalition and its leaders, demanding stricter oversight and transparency in the legislative process. A dominant stance—growing resistance to the fast-track procedure.

The opposition's stance against the government: The primary critique centers on the fact that state resources and education funding are not being properly channeled, and that demagogic rhetoric coupled with a lack of compensatory funding is exacerbating the situation. The speaker demands answers, specifically the opportunity to reclaim the funds and appeal to the administrative court, and stresses that a thorough legal analysis must be employed to achieve this. This demonstrates powerful, forceful criticism and an unwillingness to accept the current methods.

A critique aimed at the government and ministers, particularly regarding plans to reallocate funding across various sectors to cover teachers' salaries—a move presented as potentially damaging to general education, science, and higher education institutions. It highlights specific objections concerning the failure to deliver on promises and the segmentation of budgets; the tone of the address is critical but non-populist, aiming for a broad-based consensus.

The criticism leveled against the coalition centers on its past voting record concerning similar legislative drafts. It is pointed out that the coalition has previously dismissed the very positions now being adopted by the critics. The criticism is policy-driven, not personal, and underscores the necessity of reaching a compromise.

Critical of the government and the coalition, particularly regarding inconsistent messaging and political behavior; while simultaneously emphasizing the need for cooperation and compromise.

Critical of the coalition and their plans regarding the draft bill; emphasizes the protection of institutional independence and the fear of politically motivated interference through the Ministry of Justice. Does not support underhanded maneuvers against the draft bills, and stresses the need to ensure the principles of the rule of law. Not enough data on the extent of direct confrontation outside these points.

A critical, opposition-style tone is directed at the coalition; questions and concerns are being raised regarding the execution of major projects and the risks associated with nuclear energy. To describe it better, the attitude is skeptical and focused on oversight, even if no direct, unannounced compromise is explicitly stated.

Not enough data

There is no obvious opposition or personal attack; the criticism is confined to the form of questions and the demand for clarification of specific reasons.

The main resistance is focused on tax increases and the government's economic policy; it is being argued that taxes will not solve rising inflation or industrial instability, and demands are being made for investments that stimulate the economy and for transparent development plans. The criticism is strong, and virtually no cooperative compromise is being expressed without concrete economic measures and budget changes.

Critical of the current approach and the division of roles between the state and local authorities: shifting the blame to local authorities is not sufficient, and the state must allocate adequate funds for education. Although he/she visibly does not personally attack individuals, he/she is relatively at odds with the existing framework and emphasizes the need for shared responsibility and cooperation.