By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

No direct opposition has been stated; there is no clear criticism of the source of opposition; emphasis is placed on opportunities for dialogue and inclusion, rather than resistance.

The opposition maintains a critical stance toward the government’s actions, accusing it of a lack of transparency in its decisions and the reckless squandering of taxpayer money in the case of Nordica. It emphasizes the necessity of control and accountability, demands a series of inquiries, and insists that the situation cannot continue without thorough consideration and transparency.

Primarily critical of the coalition, stressing that the current budget violates the constitution and that the lack of transparency is detrimental to the public's economic and social welfare. Frequently cites examples of administrative failures by the Ministry of Finance and other government bodies, and urgently demands solutions. The tone is direct and forceful, but cooperation with political rivals is not ruled out in order to achieve objective changes.

The main opponents are described as the Reform Party, which is accused of causing the suspension of European Union funding and the project's delay. The opposition's view is strongly critical, expressing deep criticism regarding political decisions made on a personal level. Statements have indicated that the opposition makes no distinction (between the parties/issues), and they wish to seek a mutual solution through coalition negotiations.

The main argument of the opposition centers on criticizing government decisions and leveling accusations regarding issues related to corruption. He/She emphasizes the issue of public trust and the scourge of corruption, demonstrating that these matters are political and directly relate to bureaucratic transparency. Personal conflicts (conflicts of interest) can also be highlighted, and he/she demands answers and accountability.

The criticism is aimed at the frameworks for state management and the schemes for implementing the company owner's expectations, as well as the periods of austerity. It stresses the need for a more thorough impact assessment and the prioritization of residents' interests. There are no explicit personal or party-based attacks, but rather a general critique of the measures currently in place.