By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Strongly critical and accusatory towards the Social Democrats; emphasizing their lack of consistency and shifting principles. Intense, but primarily in the context of political confrontation.

Both speeches represent strong opposition: the first speech featured criticism of tax policy and the EU directive, along with a demand for clarification and possible postponement; the second speech focused on opposing the car tax, emphasizing legal issues and the protection of vulnerable groups. The intensity is high, the criticism is concentrated, and while seeking compromise is primarily viewed as necessary, broad cooperation with the coalition is not described.

Opposition-style criticism directed at Eesti 200; accusations of corruption, conflicts of interest, and illegal procedures; emphasizing the necessity of transparency and oversight. The aggressive tone used in posing questions demonstrates strong opposition and a demand for accountability, showing no willingness to tolerate unjust practices.

The main opposition is aimed at the coalition and the Reform Party: there is deep criticism of the car tax, alongside accusations of unreasonable tax structures and procedural limitations. The intensive criticism concerns both the political decisions and the implementation of democratic procedures, highlighting violations of constitutionality and civil rights. Should the demands presented be disregarded, specific legal remedies are being planned.

The primary critical issue is the failure of government members to appear before special committees; the criticism is procedural, focusing on the lack of attendance and responses, rather than the expression of personal contempt. The process is intense and purposeful, and compromise is being emphasized over the continuing burden related to legal accountability.

The core opposition is directed at the Social Democrats and their plans; criticizing their approach regarding the birch forest issue and, more broadly, their systemic proposals. It fails to provide the necessary leverage for major changes, such as new punitive mechanisms for state institutions, and emphasizes that the rule of law must be followed, special audits must be conducted, and new, separate forms of procedure should not be created. It characterizes the confrontation as discursive and gives the impression that compromise is possible in some sense, but makes no bold commitments.

The attack is primarily aimed at Minister Michal, along with the management and supervisory boards of KredEx and Nordica. The criticism also extends to the coalition as a whole, which, in the speaker’s view, has obscured or diminished accountability. It is highlighted that crucial operations were conducted without transparent procurement processes or due procedure, and the speaker calls for investigation and holding those responsible to account. The intensity is high, and compromise is not on the table, as the explicit goal is thorough scrutiny and ensuring accountability.