By Months: Maris Lauri

Strong criticism has been directed at earlier political decisions, particularly the dismantling of the second pillar of the pension system, which is being called an "extremely foolish" action that reduced domestic capital. Negative attitudes (NIMBY and BANANA) regarding the valorization and extraction of natural resources are also being criticized. The criticism is aimed at policies and general attitudes, not at individuals.

The criticism is primarily aimed at colleagues' inaccurate claims and procedural errors, correcting them sharply and directly. It also criticizes the Ministry of Finance's initial handling of the draft bill, specifically where the Financial Supervision Authority was not involved. It defends the legislator's right to make choices and views legal disputes (including those with the President and the Supreme Court) as a natural part of democracy.

The opposition speaker criticizes the Isamaa faction for procedural errors (the supplementary budget proposal was submitted in the wrong format, not as a draft resolution) and for the absence of their representatives at crucial committee sessions. He also criticizes Urmas Reinsalu for the excessive length and lack of clarity in his questions, but commends the Social Democrats for their honesty in articulating their ideological standpoints.

The main opponents are Isamaa, the Social Democrats, and the Centre Party, all of whom face sharp criticism regarding their tax policies and ideological stances. Isamaa's defense of the progressive income tax is labeled "perverse," while the Centre Party is accused of hypocrisy when discussing the populace's ability to cope. The criticism is intense and politically charged, underscoring fundamental ideological differences.

The main criticism is aimed at the supporters of the draft bill, who are accused of an emotional and ill-considered decision-making process due to the lack of an up-to-date threat assessment. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, not personal. Furthermore, the speaker faced a personal attack (the citation of Dzerzhinsky) and demanded a response to it from the session chair.

The opposition is directed at the draft bill initiated by the Center Party faction and its sponsors. The criticism is intense, focusing both on the substantive quality of the bill (it’s poorly thought out and superficial) and the competence of the initiators (they are unable to explain their choices and are not familiar with the subject matter). He/She criticizes the opposition for making demagogic claims and demands that they submit substantive proposals instead.