By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Laats

The main focus is directed toward strong, critical opposition: the Reform Party and Eesti 200 are being accused over their tax policy, which is labeled as an intentional effort to increase poverty and undermine consumer well-being. It is highlighted that the conflict is purely political, and the criticism far outweighs the offering of constructive alternatives; this clearly represents defiance and a demarcation of compromise regarding the other political parties.

A critical stance on the government's current tax policy; the text emphasizes the necessity of not relying solely on tax hikes and calls for a comprehensive audit of the tax system and heavier taxation (of assets, capital, and high dividend income). The intensity is palpable, and the oppositionist tone leans toward reforms, but there is no concrete rejection of the current government; rather, it demands alternative, systemic solutions.

The main body of the text opposes the ruling coalition's tax policy and broken promises; focus is placed on the Reform Party's scandals and the use of the 'Russian card' as a political tool, along with assigning responsibility for the accountability gap and presenting counter-accusations. The criticism presented in this struggle is highly intense and includes keywords: labeling, demagoguery, and the emphasis on claims concerning substance.

The core opposing thesis is centered on the government's economic and tax policies. The emphasis is placed on the root causes of the problems and the absence of viable solutions. There is strong criticism directed at all measures that increase the regulatory burden or diminish the competitiveness of businesses. Proposals are widely put forward for tax reductions, targeted investment, and ensuring a fairer income for businesses and farmers. The cooperation mentioned in some sections might imply a hidden agreement or collusion with the Reform Party and Eesti 200, but the overriding tone remains critical and dissenting.

The primary resistance targets CO2 trading and the current execution of the Green Transition; criticism centers on economic and competitive advantages, as well as the system's overall efficiency.—The critique even involves the coalition, which, while asserting the potential of CO2 trading, stresses the necessity for a thorough review.—It is emphasized that the narrative surrounding green energy is not always clean, and the macro-level descriptions of the Green Transition can be misleadingly illustrative (examples provided).

Critical of the government’s budget management, stressing that cuts must be considered cautiously and thoroughly, along with the impact of changes related to taxation or bureaucracy. Criticizes mislabeling and calls for a constructive, cooperation-focused approach to the Rail Baltic issue. Demonstrates resistance to excessive or clearly poorly justified decisions.

The primary adversary regarding the coalition's rapid steps toward the green transition and the government's energy policy; characterizes the government as lacking a mandate and demands snap elections or a consultation to seek the people's mandate. The criticism is strong and is directed at both the specific decisions and the overall process (broadly speaking).

Clearly oppositional: The criticism centers on government decisions and their impact on the population (voting rights, long-term care reform, tax policy). Problems are assessed in detail, and the need to increase accountability and responsibility is emphasized; compromise is portrayed as desirable, but only within a limited context, primarily through political disputes.