By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The main focus is on the opposition to the car tax; the car tax's conflict with the constitution is highlighted, and additional criticism centers on the reasons for its implementation. This stance relies on the positions presented to the Chancellor of Justice and the Riigikogu (Parliament), emphasizing the necessity for amendments or outright repeal.

The primary focus is on the conflict between the government and the coalition; criticism is directed at the Minister of Finance, the coalition partners, and the Reform Party, with unnecessary appeals to moral authority. This is an intense and direct attack involving accusations of immorality, corruption, and money laundering; instead of compromise, the emphasis is placed on increasing contact and accountability.

The criticism centers on the environmental requirements of the European Union's green policy and the onerous impact they have on small businesses. Specific opponents are not named; the focus is instead placed on the necessity of change and dialogue.

The criticism is aimed at the figures presented by the ministry and the explanatory memorandum of the draft bill; accurate and transparent data is being demanded. The tone is critical, but does not indicate outright rejection or confrontation, focusing instead on deliberative scrutiny.

The main theme of the political stance is the criticism of the government's Rail Baltic funding: it is critical and stresses that the cost is excessive and cooperation with Latvia is not assured. He emphasizes the necessity of risk analysis and funding transparency, pointing out that the financing and infrastructure situation is potentially detrimental if a solid financial model is lacking. The author of the second address adds that the parallel drawn with the Kremlin in the Prime Minister's speech was ineffective and inappropriate; there is also criticism regarding personal remarks.

It emphasizes confrontation, criticizing the "current decision-makers" and mentioning that he suspects individuals even in other parties (including the social democrats); the tone is strongly critical and unreservedly skeptical. The condemnation is directed at the government's decisions and green policy, and it is stressed that the opposition and other parties may not support the proposal.

Clearly oppositional; criticism is directed at the government and its policies (taxes, detrimental impacts on livelihoods, lack of oversight). It emphasizes accountability and the need for change and responsibility; the tone is strongly critical, calling the government to account and suggesting a potential retreat or resignation.

The most critical parties involved are the Prosecutor's Office and the management of Pihlakodu; the accusations focus on negligent supervision, failure to initiate proceedings, and sending false signals to the victims; official criticism is sharp, emphasizing the need to ensure effective accountability and the protection of victims' rights.

The primary attacks are aimed at the Reform Party, Eesti 200, and the Social Democrats; the coalition’s policies are judged to be detrimental, and criticism is frequent and intense; compromise is seen as limited in scope, manifesting primarily as protest and opposition to draft legislation.

The opponents are the Social Democrats (SDE) and the other partners in the coalition; criticism centers on their leadership and policies, along with the claim that their exercise of power has failed to improve the public’s standard of living. The clear position is to stand in opposition to the SDE and emphasize the perspectives of the Reform Party/Eesti 200.

The primary criticism targets rhetoric resembling that of a minister and the focus on ideological loyalty. Emphasis is placed on the independence of civil servants from politics, and the practice of using salaried positions for political leadership is not supported. The critique is grounded in a political framework (focusing on procedural matters and the defense of democratic principles) and avoids direct personal attacks against specific political parties, although conservative parties are mentioned as a potential scenario. The intensity is moderate and principled, rather than personal.

The primary opponents are the social democrats, whose methods and manner of transposing the directive he depicts as a threat to the legal order and business freedom. He accuses them of advocating for the further expansion of punitive mechanisms and the initiation of administrative proceedings, often employing highly judgmental language. The tone is intense, yet there is no indication of a compromise being offered concerning these measures.