By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The primary adversaries are the ruling coalition, specifically the Social Democrats and Eesti 200. The criticism is both procedural (rushing the process, ignoring proposals) and political (tax hikes, misallocation of resources). The Social Democrats are accused of populism and overburdening businesses, while Eesti 200 faces accusations regarding foreign policy inconsistencies and a failure to understand partners (Hungary).

There is no criticism; the questions are aimed at obtaining clarifications and exploring alternative, simpler policy paths.

The criticism is aimed at the lack of transparency surrounding the procedural decisions made by the Riigikogu, particularly concerning the actions of the committee chairman, who calls matters to a vote without providing any justification. The objection itself is procedural and centers on the absence of explanations, thereby calling into question the legitimacy of the decision-making process.

The criticism targets the unclear definitions and inadequate implementation plan found in the government’s draft legislation, particularly regarding the timeline for the nationwide risk analysis. There is opposition to adopting European terminology when those terms are less clear in Estonian. Furthermore, the potential negative impact of new digital solutions on the elderly is also being criticized.

The main opponent is the government, and specifically the Minister of the Interior, who is being criticized for failures within their administrative domain. The criticism is intense and centers on specific scandals (the Rescue Board’s boat rally, the Narva buoys) and the controversial handling of historical monuments. No willingness to compromise has been expressed; rather, they are demanding a change in the situation.

The primary criticism is aimed at the actions of the minister and the government, accusing them of flawed procedure (specifically, the lack of a proper coordination table and rushing the process) and failing to involve businesses. The draft bill is frequently labeled "anti-business," and the failure to assess its socio-economic impact is also a point of criticism. The use of the justification that the measure is temporary—specifically to avoid subsequent evaluation and stakeholder involvement—is particularly condemned.

The primary target is the government, and specifically Minister Kristina Kallas, whose competence is being challenged due to her previous political decisions. The criticism is policy-driven, intensely focusing on the negative repercussions of centralizing education. There is no mention of compromise; the focus remains squarely on accountability.