By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The primary criticism targets policymakers who set unrealistic goals (e.g., 90% climate neutrality by 2040) and pass foolish decisions. The speaker sharply criticizes the powers granted to the European Union, which have led to the effective loss of Estonian independence, and accuses them of creating charges that generate unhealthy competition.

The confrontation is aimed directly at the current government coalition, which is accused of creating ideology-based curricula and engaging in "absurdity." Criticism is also directed at the minister's stance regarding teacher freedom of choice and the funding of "pseudo-scientists" based on a political mandate. The opposition is intense and ideological.

The main opposition is aimed at the coalition and the rapporteur who introduced and are defending the car tax. The criticism is intense and accusatory, claiming that the tax is deliberately unfair and was implemented with the goal of fleecing the public. The opposition is both substantive (concerning the policy itself) and procedural (lack of transparency in the calculations).

The main opponents are the government and the prime minister, who are fiercely criticized for their lack of political accountability and economically unsound decisions. The criticism is intense and ranges from the substance of the policy (supporting Nordica) to questioning their personal competence, asking whether it was a conscious decision or sheer stupidity.

The primary criticism is aimed at the government, specifically regarding their defense spending and tax policy. The criticism is policy-driven, focusing on the contradiction between the tax burden collected from the populace and the actual achievement of defense objectives. The intensity of the attack is high, as people are directly asking why such a large additional burden was placed on the public when the money is not actually being spent to the necessary extent.

The main confrontation is directed against the government, which is criticized for its unstable and unstatesmanlike family policy (the granting and withdrawal of benefits). Criticism is also aimed at the political parties that oppose child benefits, demanding that they propose alternative solutions. The opposition is policy- and value-based, accusing opponents of undermining the public sense of security.

Direct opposition to the draft bill is not expressed, but the speaker questions the scope and justification of the bill, criticizing the committee/rapporteur for an insufficient systemic approach. The criticism focuses on the fact that Riigikogu members are being treated as an exception, while the control mechanisms for other state officials remain unclear.