By Plenary Sessions: Maris Lauri

Fierce opposition is aimed at the fiscal policymakers of previous years, who have been dubbed "the three deficit masters." The criticism targets both the policy itself (the persistent deficit) and their character, accusing them of laziness, political irresponsibility, and cowardice. He sharply criticizes those who suggest "doubling down on the foolishness" and are looking for scapegoats instead of resolving the situation.

The speaker initially criticizes the opposition party for refusing to discuss the bill they themselves submitted, citing a procedural irregularity. Later, the speaker sharply criticizes the viewpoint presented by the opposing side as "biased," refuting claims regarding the excessive strictness of Estonian regulation compared to EU requirements.

The criticism is directed at state authorities that offer excuses instead of solutions, and against systemic market failures, such as unacceptably long permit processing times. Strong opposition is also aimed at those interested in oligopoly or monopolism, emphasizing that the Riigikogu must not be their "mouthpiece." The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, pointing to an unfair legal framework.

There is no direct opposition or criticism aimed at specific political opponents. The first address poses a question to the minister aimed at clarifying contradictions in policy implementation, rather than launching an attack. The criticism is directed instead toward the practical difficulties of implementing the policy.

Strong criticism has been leveled against the government for its lack of fiscal responsibility, specifically accusing one minister of focusing solely on spending rather than taking charge of the budget's soundness. A specific political confrontation involves the Isamaa party due to their opposition to abolishing the tax hump, which has been labeled an "extremely stupid decision." The opposition is being called upon to demonstrate sincerity and action, not just posturing.