By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The approach to the opposition is pragmatic: [he/she is] willing to support the opposition's submission of reasonable amendments if this aids in achieving consensus; [he/she is] neither critical nor aggressive.

Critical of the government's economic policy, particularly concerning the managed tax changes (the VAT hike). It is noted that the Centre Party submitted a draft bill to reduce [the rate] to 9%, which the Reform Party did not support, citing the complex, intertwined debate between opposition positions. The second paragraph directs criticism at the premises of the PPA (Police and Border Guard Board) and the lack of a necessary legal basis. The opposition is seen as complicating the oversight of enforcement and the growth of a surveillance society, while emphasizing the protection of fundamental rights.

Taking a strongly oppositional stance against the Tallinn city government's decision; it argues that the decision restricts the principles of free elections and deems it fundamentally problematic. It criticizes the decision's impact on democracy and the freedom of voters, employing strong language such as “infringement.”

The main rival is the Social Democrats and their tax policy, which is treated as detrimental to people's livelihoods and opposed to the democratic spirit. The criticism is noticeably strong and emotional (referring to an "anti-people government" and "hypocrisy"), but the direct possibility for compromise is signaled by an unwillingness to restrict rather than approve. It is emphasized that the criticism of previous decisions is visually manifest.

A critical stance towards the Prosecutor's Office and the justice system, as well as the broader informant network (due to unacceptable public statements and the lack of protection for victims). The second speech features sharp criticism against lobbying and the associated idealistic posturing and political games (Uber, Bolt, the Reform Party, Eesti 200); delivered with a strong opposition tone. The intensity is high.

The main opponents are the coalition government and the prime minister, who stand accused of imposing excessive taxation and lacking transparency. Criticism is also directed at the finance minister's statement, the Reform Party, and Kristen Michal, who are described as parties riding the wave of populism. The statement is heavily colored by a tone of political confrontation, with minimal references to compromise; the criticism is strong and directly related to the government.

The primary adversary is the car tax policy and the approach it represents; the criticism is policy-based and legal, emphasizing the lack of differentiation and the conflict with constitutionality. It highlights the controversial changes that have been introduced and the readiness to seek judicial assistance. No specifics regarding compromise are mentioned, indicating strong opposition to the car tax.

The main targets of criticism are the government coalition (including the Reform Party) and the Social Democrats, who are accused of increasing taxes and imposing an unfair burden on families. The speaker emphasizes that the car tax perpetuates injustice and lowers the standard of living for key social groups; it is directly claimed that the coalition is guilty of implementing damaging tax policies. The attack is strong, but it is constrained by the desire to utilize legal means and seek cooperation with the coalition, rather than foreclosing compromises through personalizing the conflict.

The main focus is criticism of the current government’s decisions and the coalition’s intentions, particularly concerning the state repurchase of Enefit Green and the lack of transparency in tax policy. The stance is strongly critical and demanding, directed towards additional scrutiny and the conclusions under review by the special anti-corruption commission; promoting compromise is not highlighted.

Criticism of the regulatory solution and the overall direction, emphasizing the need for broader and more concrete measures. The tone is critical, though not personally adversarial.