By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Läänemets

The speaker is willing to support bills that are moving in the right direction (e.g., teacher qualifications) but is also prepared to ask critical questions and take an opposing stance. They highlight the failure to support the Social Democrats' amendment (the abolition of kindergarten fees), which indicates limited cooperation with the government on social issues.

Cooperation is only mentioned in a historical context, referencing the period when the Social Democrats were in government and the previous proposals put forth by Eesti 200. The current discourse lacks any reference to a willingness to compromise with the ruling coalition; the communication is purely confrontational.

The speaker emphasizes cooperation within the Social Democrats faction in supporting the motion of no confidence for all three reasons. Previous collaboration in the government is also referenced (e.g., with Riina Sikkut on the topic of mental health) to support the current arguments regarding the lack of resources.

He often sees himself and his party isolated in the chamber, especially on tax matters, noting that the Social Democrats stand alone on this issue. He supports the Reform Party’s initiative concerning Tallinn’s kindergartens but criticizes the lack of state funding, which is causing difficulties. In the context of labor relations, he stresses that any compromise must be reached through an agreement between the social partners (trade unions and employers), rather than being a decision imposed by the minister.

The speaker refers to the willingness of the Social Democrats to cooperate, noting that they have come to the aid of the Reform Party with a supplementary budget proposal aimed at resolving the confusion created by the government. The goal of this cooperation is to achieve a nationwide solution that would protect the children of Tallinn. This cooperation is conditional and is directed toward correcting the political course of the government.

The speaker demonstrates cooperation with trade unions and social democrats, referencing their draft bill and supporting the defense of workers' rights. While acknowledging the minister's presence, the speaker immediately expresses suspicion that business interests are the driving force behind it. No willingness to cooperate with the government is expressed; rather, their policies are sharply criticized.

There is no evidence of cooperation; rather, the speaker points to previous failed attempts to resolve issues with the Reform Party, where all arguments were rejected. The speaker emphasizes the government's opposition and obstruction, not a readiness for compromise.

There is insufficient information regarding the willingness to cooperate or compromise, as the address presented was focused entirely on sharply questioning the minister.

The cooperation style is conditional; the speaker acknowledges the minister's position regarding the principles of the rule of law ("we are in the same boat"), but is otherwise confrontational towards the government. He emphasizes the Social Democrats' previous role in initiating policies (support for extracurricular activities), citing the need to respect historical agreements.