By Plenary Sessions: Andres Metsoja

The primary opposition is aimed at the government and "Tallinn," which are criticized for failing to grasp regional specificities. Furthermore, the former prime minister is criticized for negatively characterizing the residents of Southeast Estonia. The critique covers both policy matters (the ineffectiveness of support payments) and procedural issues (the risk of increasing bureaucracy).

Criticism is directed at the initiators of the draft legislation, faulting them for a poor overall vision, disproportionality, and ignoring community opinion. He criticizes the bill, arguing that it sends a provocative signal to society and could actually end up doing a disservice to renewable energy production. The speaker also opposes the radical polarization between supporters and opponents of renewable energy.

Criticism is aimed at the government's actions, which involve planning extensive nature conservation restrictions (12,000 ha) without the necessary budgetary resources to pay compensation. The opposition is focused on policy and procedural matters, emphasizing fiscal responsibility and highlighting budget deficits.

The primary criticism is leveled against the actions of the minister and the government, whose decisions concerning the closure of Paikuse College and significant investments are deemed unreasonable. The criticism is rooted in policy and budgetary concerns, questioning both the necessity and the timing of these decisions during a difficult period.

The opposition is directed at decisions made by the government or ministry concerning the closure of security agencies in Pärnu, a move considered detrimental to the region. The criticism is policy-based, emphasizing the negative impact these decisions have on internal security and defense capability.