By Plenary Sessions: Lauri Läänemets

Strong opposition is directed at the Reform Party (for presenting unrealistic energy forecasts and figures) and at Isamaa (for stifling renewable energy development over the last ten years, labeling them "super-hinderers"). The criticism is intense, focusing on political incompetence and the lack of a comprehensive strategy.

The primary confrontation is directed against the "right-wing government" and the Reform Party, criticizing their ideology concerning the funding of the cultural sector. The criticism is policy-based, referencing a previous comment made by a Reform Party minister about directing cultural workers toward "productive work."

The main adversary is the government and the prime minister, whose policies are criticized as detrimental to the Estonian worker and economic development. The criticism is both political and procedural, accusing the government of ignoring trade union warnings and overemphasizing the position of employers. The attacks are intense, claiming that the government is forcing workers to bear responsibility for business risks.

The confrontation is directed at the government and the minister, who are being criticized both for the content of the draft bill and for violating the legislative process. A particularly sharp point of contention is the failure to consult with labor market stakeholders and the lack of proper discussion. The criticism is intense and demands direct explanations.

The main opponents are EKRE and the Centre Party, who are being criticized for spreading false claims, such as the notion that religious freedom is being restricted. The speaker accuses them of disseminating Russian narratives and forcefully rejects their arguments, claiming that the law actually protects Orthodox believers.

The main opponents are the government, specifically the prime minister and Minister of Economic Affairs Erkki Keldo, who introduced the bill to the Riigikogu. Criticism is aimed both at the substance of the bill (reducing employee security) and the procedure, as trade unions, the Chamber of Disabled People, and professional organizations have claimed that they were not included.