By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Critical of the state plan and unwilling to contribute to its adoption; emphasizes the need to clarify and improve the constitutional framework concerning religious associations, and remains skeptical regarding the expediency and effectiveness of new restrictions. A strong degree of steadfastness is evident, coupled with a desire for minimal compromise.

The primary point of contention revolves around the approach taken by the government and the Ministry of Finance regarding cuts to budgetary control. Criticism focuses on the minister's right to amend the budget without preliminary scrutiny by the Riigikogu (Parliament); there is an emphasis on the necessity of restoring and safeguarding parliamentary oversight. The coalition's plans face intense pushback, with greater transparency and constitutional procedure being proposed as alternatives.

The primary criticism is aimed at the government's tax policy and the role played by the Ministry of Finance; it is stressed that the new taxes damage the economy and reduce the purchasing power of the average consumer. Furthermore, the Ministry of Finance and the processes used to handle the draft bill are criticized (specifically, the lack of committee discussion), and the need for transparency is also highlighted.

The primary antagonists are the Ministry of Finance and the government's budget spending; the criticism centers on the impact of tax hikes and cuts to the social sector. The message stressed that the opposition must have a voice regarding the state budget, and that the minister's responses are inadequate, adding that the use of personal insults is unacceptable. The intensity is high, and the room for compromise is limited.

A strong opposition stance; critical of the coalition and the Ministry of Finance; emphasizes that the budget must be transparent and controllable, and is prepared to disregard the coalition’s plans if they do not increase transparency; offers an alternative and demands changes.

Highly critical of the current government's tax policy, focusing on tax hikes as the root cause of the problems. It slams the measures adopted by the minister and the government, stressing that these actions are damaging the economy and disrupting family finances and household arrangements. The intensity is high; no clear strategy for cooperation or compromise is offered in this passage.

The strong opposition to the government's economic policy: delivering a critical assessment of tax hikes and the reduction of child benefits; emphasizing the negative impact on families and overall economic welfare; and raising questions concerning the government leader's position and the direction of the administration.

Working together with the Centre Party faction, his primary position of opposition is directed against the government's plan to alter the educational requirements for the Secretary of State and modify the entire law solely for the benefit of one individual. He is attacking both the procedure surrounding the draft bill and the general process by which legislation reaches this chamber, leveling accusations of political susceptibility and the creation of a dangerous precedent. He employs powerful rhetorical maneuvers in his counter-offensive, stressing that changes of this nature would undermine the state's continuity and credibility.

Strongly critical of the actions taken by the government and the ministry concerning Nordica; emphasizes potential taxpayer detriment and negative parallels with Estonian Air. The unusual question format and the act of raising the issue (mätta tõstmine) suggest confrontation, and government policy is primarily addressed through questions of oversight and accountability. It does not represent a new compromise or cooperation supported by specific proposals.

The text is highly critical of the government’s budget and financing policies, highlighting the lack of transparency and the failure to account for the allocation of funds. It demands clarity, specifically that revenue be directed straight into road infrastructure. It lays out strong political criticism concerning budget organization and stresses the need for accountability and oversight, though it stops short of presenting a specific opposition solely as a standalone program.