By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The primary criticism is aimed at the government and the majority, who routinely reject sound bills proposed by the opposition without examining their merits, justifying these rejections by citing future planned amendments. There is sharp criticism regarding tax hikes detrimental to farmers, as well as the structure of the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture, which signals the marginalization of the agricultural sector. The government’s activities are being dubbed the deliberate killing off of rural life.

Insufficient data.

The stance adopted is critically questioning of the government, especially concerning plans to ensure food security in times of war and crisis. The politician demands explanations and concrete steps from the government, pointing to potential inaction or insufficient planning. The criticism is aimed at the substance of the policy and the actions themselves.

The primary resistance targets the government’s policies, which impose coercive measures (such as mandatory reconstruction and the car tax) and prioritize major projects (like Rail Baltic) to the detriment of the regional road network. The criticism is policy-driven, focusing on the economic and social harm caused by these measures, particularly in rural areas. The critic also faults the ministries for failing to set an example by transitioning to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The speaker is clearly adopting an opposition stance, criticizing the government's economic policy (while proposing alternative tax cuts) and challenging parliamentary procedures. They question the depth of knowledge held by coalition members and defend the right of those raising questions to debate the issue in the main hall. The criticism is directed at policy and procedures, not at individuals.

The main criticism is directed at the government and ministries, criticizing their lack of transparency (the classification of information requests) and their uncertainty in ensuring national security (citing the University of Tartu and the Peipus border). The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, demanding better management and proactive work.

The criticism is aimed at those who employ the "leaving the dead in peace" argument to obstruct the relocation of Soviet monuments, labeling this tactic as merely finding a justification to avoid taking further steps. Furthermore, the state's current policy, which has failed to remove monuments situated on private land, is also under fire.

The opposition's stance is directed against the government and the prime minister, sharply criticizing tax policy, foreign aid priorities, and the failure of integration. The criticism is both political (focusing on tax hikes) and procedural, hinting at inadequate investigations (the Lehtme case) and general dishonesty. The opposition is intense and highly accusatory.

The dispute is directed at procedural issues and the allocation of jurisdiction regarding the presented legislative amendment. The criticism is moderate and is expressed in the form of a question, raising suspicions that the Minister of the Interior may not be the appropriate minister to handle the matter, citing a potential sectoral mismatch.

The criticism is aimed at the high taxation policy, evidenced by the desire to lower the VAT rate. There is opposition to the current tax policy, which results in a rate higher than the EU minimum. Specific opponents or political groups are not personally criticized.

The criticism is aimed at the government's handling of the Nordica sale process, questioning the transparency and timing of the procedure. The objection is policy- and procedure-based, not personal, and focuses on potential negative consequences.