By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Laats

Insufficient data.

The primary criticism is directed at the right-wing/government's energy policy and the pace of the green transition. This includes criticism of Draft 555 and its impact on taxpayers, energy prices, and the country's credibility. He/She emphasizes the need for a more comprehensive and realistic approach and is strongly opposed to the current coordinated plans, which could lead to prohibitive costs and uncertainty.

The criticism is aimed at the current government and previous administrations regarding their inaction and the regulatory barriers they have established. The criticism is political and technical in nature, but it avoids personal attacks, instead calling for accountability and the implementation of reforms.

Opponents are focusing on the risks associated with the security and secrecy of e-voting, and some were openly critical of the draft bill. Examples include: The Centre Party (the new Centre Party) does not support e-elections; a group emphasizes their distrust and calls for the establishment of a stable, transparent, and verifiable system. A significant challenge is considered to be the creation of doubt among the majority of society, along with criticism aimed at coalition policy.

A strong oppositional tone is directed at the government: criticizing the aggressive tax policy and the impact of inflation. The government is viewed as operating on an austerity diet, which exacerbates poverty. The governance of Tallinn's social democrats and the reduction in the number of polling stations are characterized as undermining democratic values. Criticism stemming from the interests of Estonian nationhood is sharp and targets specific policy choices (the tax hump, and VAT exceptions).

The criticism is primarily aimed at the government's decisions and the manner in which they were processed. It labels three specific parties (the Social Democrats, Eesti 200, and the Reform Party) as "the three sages," whose decisions were inconsistent with ENMAK and generated a political power shift. This creates a strong opposition, focused mainly on procedural matters and outcomes, emphasizing the necessity for clarity and mandatory procedures. Furthermore, it is markedly critical of both the decision-making process and the risks inherent in the financial commitments.

The main points raised by opponents concern criticism of the current government's energy policy and the direction of the green transition; previous governments are also mentioned as part of the context of this criticism. The intensity is high—the discourse is critical and offers alternative solutions, but the scope for compromise is narrowly defined.

The opposition's main focus is on criticizing government policy, highlighting the lack of a mandate, and pursuing transparency. They are demanding resignation or that the government seek a new mandate. The criticism is strong and almost always firmly directed at major decisions (offshore wind farms, tax policy).

Key positions: Criticism of the policies of the coalition and the Reform Party/Eesti 200; skeptical regarding the Social Democrats' position on the car tax; emphasizes the need for a bank tax and increased competition to lower interest rates and improve the consumer situation. Expresses strong opposition to the coalition's decisions and demands their public explanation and the advancement of the draft bills.

The main opposition stance is against the bill: the criticism centers on the impact of mandatory gender equality quotas on the economy, the makeup of corporate management, and the consequences of sanctions. Criticism is also strong regarding the car tax, with demands being made for its outright rejection or modification due to its significant impact. The underlying reasons are non-politicized economic and socio-economic consequences.

When the current approach of the national government is criticized, the need for clear measures and cooperation to enhance security is emphasized. There is no consensus regarding an absolute, general ban on the use of Chinese technology, but it has been noted that the state has failed to implement sufficient measures. The intense criticism is policy-based and stems from security and consumer protection concerns.