By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The primary criticism is aimed at the bill's rapporteur and the government's attempt to fast-track the adoption of m-voting, despite unresolved issues and expert opposition. The criticism is both substantive and procedural, accusing the opposing party of ignoring security concerns and creating illusions. The politician casts doubt on the security of e-voting, referencing negative examples from Russia and Venezuela.

The criticism is directed at the Economic Affairs Committee and the bill’s supporters, who are accused of short-sightedness and the cavalier rejection of Isamaa’s reasonable proposals. The opposition is policy- and procedure-focused, emphasizing inadequate crisis preparedness and the disregard for consumer protection. Specifically, the lack of answers to questions raised within the committee is heavily criticized.

The opposition is directed at the government's plan to terminate the universal service without providing an alternative, as well as the Economic Affairs Committee's decision to reject the proposals put forward by Isamaa. Criticism is also aimed at changes to the legal system that could potentially turn the administrative court into a "rubber stamp" for the Competition Authority, leaving private legal entities unprotected against the arbitrary actions of state power. Strong moral condemnation is aimed at business activities that support Russia's waging of war.

The main opponents are government ministers (the Prime Minister and other Ministers) and the Ministry of the Interior, whose political rationale and decisions are being challenged. The criticism targets both the political substance (specifically, the issue of the low-wage top specialist) and procedural flaws (the concealment or unavailability of the security analysis). The intensity of the opposition is moderate, manifesting in specific demands and expressions of doubt.

The primary conflict is aimed at the government and its fiscal policy, which critics argue is damaging the economy and forcing citizens into taking out payday loans. The criticism is intense and focused on policy, specifically calling into question the rationale behind establishing a national credit register if it is going to compete with private businesses.

The main opponent is the minister (Signe) and the direction of the government's family policy. The criticism is intense and ranges from political failure (not raising the birth rate) to personal accusations (disparaging families with many children). There is strong opposition to the role models promoted by the government, especially concerning same-sex marriage equality.

The primary opponent is Valdo Randpere and the commission he represents, who are being criticized for resisting the strengthening of state supervision. The critique is aimed both at the political duress (party pressure) and the substantive opposition to increasing efficiency. Personal sarcasm is being employed to undercut the opponent's position.

The opposition is rooted in doubts about whether the government has conducted sufficient preparatory work and engaged the relevant stakeholders. The criticism is procedural, focusing on the lack of information or the failure to consult, rather than being personal.

The primary criticism is aimed at the governing coalition, especially Prime Minister Kaja Kallas and the ministers who advocate for immigration (Signe Riisalo, Tiit Riisalo). The criticism is intense and centers on political missteps (cuts to family benefits) and procedural incompetence (the lack of budgetary resources for immigrant integration, a state of complete disarray). The government’s actions are described as putting the country on an "extinction course."