By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The primary opposing viewpoint: against the draft bill. The criticism is based on the inadequately regulated scope concerning privacy, data protection, and control, coupled with the opaque nature of the debate. As the opposition, it defends the limits of state intervention and civil rights.

Highly critical of the coalition parties (Reform Party, Eesti 200, Social Democrats), and accusing a decision—which is viewed as serving their specific interests—of being supported by donations. It champions alternative, unified regulation and consumer protection principles; the criticism emphasizes the utilization of political influence and leverage.

The opposition to the bill, expressed at least in part, includes criticism over the prioritization of coalition interests and lobbying, accusations of corruption-like schemes, and the infringement of fundamental rights and democracy. It is stressed that the government is unwilling to compromise, that the bill cannot be justified through amendments, and that it should be withdrawn entirely. The intensity is high, the tone is aggressive, and generally, there is no consideration given to risks or potential compromise.

Clearly oppositional; critical of the decisions made by the government and state institutions, and demanding transparency and accountability. This involves not only political criticism, but also the concrete application of oversight and skills in an anti-corruption context.

Not enough data

Strong opposition to the tax policy of the government and its coalition partners (specifically concerning land tax, car tax, VAT, and income tax). The criticism primarily focuses on policies by which the central government burdens local municipalities and deals with the populace, and “Toompea politics” is treated as the main force that needs to be resisted.

There is insufficient data; specific opponents or groups are not named in the first speech, and the criticism is general and context-based, rather than being a personal accusation leveled against controversial groups.

Characterized by a strong oppositional tone; the criticism is aimed squarely at the government, the management of the Health Insurance Fund (Tervisekassa), and their expenditures. It defends taxpayer interests, employing sharp accusations and criticizing the hypocrisy surrounding the government's failure to provide impact assessments. Language suggesting compromise is limited, with the primary focus being accountability and improved transparency.

A strong oppositional tone: it accuses the coalition of its tax policy and causing hardship for the wider public. Emphasis is placed on accountability and criticism concerning the special anti-corruption committee and the leaking of internal information; it does not merely relay attacks, but presents strong accusations and demands clarification. It advocates a complete rejection of compromise and stresses the importance of oversight and accountability.

Procedural criticism concerns previous actions (RMK secret contracts, long-term agreements) and demands a special audit to clarify who was behind these events and for what reasons. The criticism is primarily procedural and focused on demanding accountability, rather than being a personal attack, and is aimed at improving the transparency of the previous government's actions.

A deepened opposition stance: critical of the government's economic policy and legislation; attempts at autonomy that conflict with EU and constitutional law, and the demand for effective oversight of local government expenditures. Direct motions of no confidence against ministers and emphasized links to corruption cases (e.g., Bolt) demonstrate a strong and active confrontation.