By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The opposition is directed against the government's tax policy, urgently demanding a "tax moratorium" and criticizing the raising of taxes. Criticism is also leveled at the general conduct of politicians, specifically their use of expense reimbursements and their lack of common sense.

The primary opposition is aimed directly at the actions of the minister and the government, criticizing the chaotic nature of the planning, the lack of oversight, and the rushing (all for the sake of a 60-day win). The criticism is intense and policy-driven, accusing the government of causing major problems and burdening the populace with high taxes.

The main opposition is the government, which faces criticism for wasteful spending and ill-advised administrative decisions, especially regarding the hiring of special representatives. The criticism is strong, focusing on the political contradiction between promises of austerity and the creation of new, expensive posts. The attacks are policy- and procedure-based.

The main criticism is aimed at the ministry and Finance Minister Ligi, who is accused of having a stubborn attitude toward entrepreneurs and ignoring their proposals. The criticism is intense and focuses on the political inability to support entrepreneurs during a difficult time. Opposition is also directed at the Economic Committee, which "tucked its tail between its legs" and failed to stand up for the interests of entrepreneurs.

The primary criticism is aimed at the management and wage policies of state-owned companies, highlighting the failures and lack of accountability at Nordica and Eesti Energia. The government's economic policy, which has driven the economy into the ground, is also under fire. The Centre Party is indirectly criticized for their salary proposal, with calls for them to lead by example.

The primary opposition is directed at the Ministry of Finance and personally Jürgen Ligi, who is accused of ignoring proposals from entrepreneurs and the Chamber of Auditors and forcing through over-regulation. The criticism is intense and political, raising questions about whose interests the Riigikogu (Parliament) is protecting—the minister's or the business community's.

The opposition is aimed at the government and its leaders, specifically naming Prime Minister Michal and the Chancellor of the Ministry of Climate. The criticism is policy-based, focusing on the failure of tax policy and the inability to keep Estonia competitive. The intensity of the attack is high, suggesting the government's ignorance and inaction.

The primary criticism targets the poor quality of legislation and the low work ethic of other members of parliament, based on the assumption that deputies may not be performing their duties. The criticism is intense and procedural, proposing extreme measures such as assessing the competence of deputies, issuing official mandates, and expulsion from parliament for absences.

The main confrontation is directed against the Reform Party and the government, criticizing their attempts to reduce social benefits while attributing the increase in social benefits to the Isamaa Party. Criticism is also leveled at the government’s political indecision regarding the issue of phosphorite surveys and the lack of clarity concerning the foundations of its foreign policy. The criticism is primarily policy- and value-based.

The primary opponent is the government and the prime minister, who are sharply criticized both for political decisions (offshore wind farms) and procedural deficiencies (lack of communication with the leadership of the Defense Forces). The intensity of the attack is high, fueled by suspicion of the government’s hidden motives and favoritism toward business circles who are guaranteed income. The criticism is also aimed at the government’s inability to learn from past mistakes (e.g., the ammunition procurement).

The speaker positions themselves as a representative of the opposition, yet refutes the idea that the questions are simply "opposition gamesmanship," stressing instead that they stem from genuine, substantive concern. The critique targets a political deficit in data accessibility—a deficit that is procedural and material, not personal.

The primary adversary is the government, which is being criticized for actively interfering with businesses and for ignoring the concerns of both the opposition and entrepreneurs. The criticism is aimed at specific political decisions (offshore wind farms, tax increases) and the rejection of the government's narrative regarding the causes of the economic recession. The government's actions are described as "the opposite" of what should be done, and its policies are resulting in the taxpayer's "debt servitude."