By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The primary sentiment is opposition to the car tax; the tax structure is criticized for burdening consumers and curtailing investments; the intensity of the conflict is political and primarily domestic, not personal.

The letter constitutes a clear challenge to the government's plan; the arguments center on criticizing the magnitude of the tax burden and the inefficiency of public spending. It advocates for rural mobility and emphasizes that the proposed tax program will not deliver the intended benefits; it would favor measures that enhance mobility options, rather than restrict them. The stance is strictly policy-based, not personally biased, though the criticism is delivered with high intensity.

Juxtaposed criticism is being presented regarding EKRE's draft bill: it is radical due to excessive restrictions and is impractical. The criticism is based primarily on political and policy levels (quotas for English-language curricula), not on personal claims. The intensity is strong, and compromise is not ruled out, though only concerning certain topics.

The main opposition is directed at the PM's road policy and the plan to reduce road maintenance expenditures, along with the possibility of using a car tax to influence the state budget. This intense, policy-centric criticism emphasizes the legal and economic negative impacts. A compromise is not being confirmed; instead, there is a call for clarification and public debate.

Intense opposition to the government's tax amendments; the focus is on the decisions being made without impact assessments and posing regional damage; calls for the reversal of the tax proposals, stressing that the taxes could scare tourists away. An intense, yet non-personal, confrontation.