By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Laats

The manifestations of the cooperation statement are primarily found in references to the views of colleagues and the decisions of the coalition, but a direct obligation for cooperation or compromise is not clearly emphasized; it utilizes references to the opinions of both coalition partners and other experts, which suggests an unreserved discussion rather than active cooperation.

It seeks cooperation, but is simultaneously critical, demanding clear answers and transparency. It notes that the behavior of coalition partners can seem like that of the opposition, which demonstrates complex, but when necessary, constructive cooperation with various parties in the areas of energy policy and tax policy.

It calls for cooperation and broad-based engagement: expressing the desire that all factions would support the idea of holding snap elections and renewing the mandate. It highlights the coordinated activity of the faction and its colleagues, noting that various parliamentary groups could jointly consider improvements to tax policy. At the same time, it indicates the need for involving various stakeholders in the proposals and maintaining dialogue, even while remaining strongly critical.

Overall, it is a mix operating under the shadow of both cooperation and disagreement. It shows some cross-group collaboration regarding the funding of the school psychologists' helpline (inquiries were drafted by several members of parliament from different parties), while in energy policy, the approach is often critical and marked by the aesthetic interplay of competition. It is possible that cross-party involvement exists on certain topics, but the tone in energy debates is frequently confrontational.

Demonstrates limited willingness to cooperate with the coalition; stresses that coalition partners may not vote for a motion of no confidence and highlights insufficient engagement within the coalition. It calls upon the opposition to cooperate and unite, but does not show significant readiness to form a broader bipolar political divide in this context — rather, it emphasizes the need to focus on common goals among opposition parties and, where possible, the inclusion of other actors.

Critical and demanding, they do not clearly present cooperation proposals; they emphasize the need for responsibility and legal order, as well as increasing transparency between agencies. They do not demonstrate specific bipolar cooperation initiatives, but rather direct attention toward control, and substantive steps are being discussed.

Although the speaker delivers sharp criticism, they demonstrate a reasonable willingness to cooperate, referencing certain colleagues (Kaljulaid, Kross) and acknowledging the thoroughness of their contributions. The speaker highlights the necessity of finding answers and fostering discussions, even though the criticism is partly oppositional. The competent communication style leans toward critical oversight and cooperation based on parity.

Critical, but demanding accountability and concrete steps: calling on the minister to state what is actually going on, and asking the government to take responsibility and present a thorough analysis of the results. Cooperation is limited: he/she emphasizes accountability and discussion, but at the same time there is no visible backing or broad-based agreement, only a need for swift and concrete action.