By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Elevated rhetoric and firm defiance against the coalition. The main criticism centers on the necessity of the draft laws and their impact on citizens, and it is stressed that the coalition is tragically attempting to meet budget targets through penalties and increased tax burdens. He is strongly opposed and asserts that the adoption of all the draft laws should be rejected.

The opposition is critical of the coalition, focusing on the controversial aspects of the car tax bill and demanding its withdrawal. The accusations center on political motivation and the limitation of democracy. They are prepared to take legal action if the bill is not withdrawn.

The position clearly stands in opposition to the coalition’s intent to define and restrict the rights of the opposition, as well as to bundle amendments. This initiative highlights the risks associated with mobile voting and the lack of safeguards for electoral secrecy. It employs strong rhetoric to underscore the defense of democracy, transparency, and the rights of the opposition, seeking to counteract the coalition’s measure. It greatly emphasizes the necessity of preserving the opposition's rights to interpellation and debate.

The text is critical of the policies set by the government and the Ministry of Culture. The criticism is strong, highlighting concrete issues like funding cuts and the threat of redistribution. It is intense, calling out a moral and practical imbalance, and demands clarification and subsequent changes.

Critical of the draft bill; highlights the lack of an impact assessment and the need for coordination; does not support the current form.

The core argument: an oppositional stance regarding the draft legislation; they are strongly against it and call for its withdrawal, advocating for alternative solutions (specifically, utilizing misdemeanor proceedings). The opposition criticizes the government, boldly asserting the necessity of compliance with the European Union directive, but does not support a parallel system.

Clearly oppositional; critical of the government's tax policy and proposed legislation; employs stronger rhetoric, emphasizing fairness and highlighting a range of risks concerning Europe and the constitution; refuses to make even a superficial compromise on the bills.

Stance: strong opposition; against the draft bill and a desire to reject the bill; criticism focuses on the impact of excessive requirements and rapid regulation, as well as the alleged objective of market cleansing.

The main focus of criticism is the government's tax policy (especially the car tax) and its failure to deliver on promises; as well as criticism regarding the coalition's structure and the governance mechanisms of local municipalities. The tone is intense and strongly adversarial; the capacity for compromise is limited, and blame is squarely placed on the government and the nation's leadership.

The primary narrative casts the government coalition and ministers as irresponsible and incompetent. They are accused of breaking promises and of inadequate implementation of proposed policies. Additionally, criticism is leveled against local governments (including Tallinn), often involving accusations and false figures. The tone is intense and strongly critical, intended to compel them to take responsibility.

The primary area of opposition is criticism of the government's tax policy; the criticism is purposefully directed largely at the sugar tax and broader tax-related policies; the attack is policy-based, but does not rule out the need to advocate for social measures, with an emphasis on alternatives and draft legislation/bills.

A direct and strongly worded opposition to the car tax; it accuses the government of the bill being in conflict with both European Union law and the constitution. The tone of the address is critical and does not automatically offer options for cooperation, but rather emphasizes the need for immediate retraction and legal protection for vulnerable groups.

Clearly oppositional: characterized by strong political criticism directed at the government and the coalition; it accuses the authorities and local governments of failing to deliver on promises made or pledged, and therefore holds them accountable. It partially supports alternative solutions, but primarily emphasizes the divide and resistance to the government's policies.