By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The main opponents are the government coalition (the Reform Party, Social Democrats and others) and their bills, which are seen as insulting to pensioners and increasing the cost of living. Tax cuts and social service reductions are being criticized, along with political modernization; the tone is strongly critical and confrontational, aiming to disrupt or reverse contentious decisions.

The opposition viewpoint: criticism of the government's economic policy and tax increases; emphasizes that these harm citizens' ability to cope and increase the crime rate. The intensity is high, as it is claimed that the policies are unreasonable and that the country’s priorities are wrong.

The criticism is directed at the previous lack of intention for inclusion and development; it highlights that inclusion and early discussion are necessary and presents an alternative, more inclusive approach to the government's actions.

A clearly oppositional attitude towards the coalition’s budget policy and the expansion of ministerial powers; the criticism is both political and procedural. Personal attacks and accusations primarily target the attitude and approach of coalition ministers, while standing up for families and vulnerable groups is seen as a priority. Their position is not one of warm cooperation, but the need to declare and discuss responsibly and transparently is emphasized.

The opposition’s stance is critical of the Center Party/Estonia’s political handling of Rail Baltic’s management and finances: unverified figures are being cited, the formation of a special commission is being demanded, and it is stressed that funding and expenditure issues must be resolved through independent oversight. Furthermore, criticism is leveled against the coalition’s draft legislation, and while greater consensus is deemed necessary, control over project risks and costs is stressed as being more important.

A strong opposition stance toward the government and the coalition: the criticism centers on budget transparency, the erosion of oversight, and the superficial approach taken by ministries. The opposition is prepared to submit alternative bills and stresses the necessity of a professional, verifiable budget.

The attack is aimed at the management of RMK and the Ministry of Climate; the criticism is both procedural and systemic (the ultimate goal being transparency and control). It is intense, but it may not rule out a separate compromise; rather, it emphasizes accountability and the strengthening of control.

The main thrust of the political criticism focuses on the shortcomings of the government's legislative process, rather than personal confrontations. It criticizes the inadequacy of impact assessments and the lack of early stakeholder involvement; demanding a thorough review of the audit and corrective measures. The intensity is moderately critical, not personal or extreme.

He/She is critical of cannabis legalization and expresses opposition, citing risks to young people, the environment, and organized crime. The issues and concerns he/she has raised demonstrate political resilience against such a policy; although it is not a direct anti-government protest, it constitutes an indirect defiance of the new regulation.