By Plenary Sessions: Andres Metsoja

The primary criticism is aimed at the government, which is viewed as incompetent and responsible for the poor standard of living in Estonia. The criticism is intense and focuses on the government's inability to provide solutions and its role in driving the country into a stalemate.

The criticism is aimed at the current legal framework and its inherent illogicality, particularly concerning the mandatory separate insurance for trailers and the unreasonable requirements for driver's licenses. The opposition is rooted in policy and logic, viewing the current system as unjustified and unfair, which ultimately results in the implementation of more expensive compulsory insurance.

The main criticism is directed at the presenters of the bill (the government), accusing them of poor legal practice that instills uncertainty and distorts competition. The criticism is intense and focuses on political and procedural errors, especially the imposition of a retroactive payment obligation. No willingness to compromise is expressed, with demands being made that the bill not be supported.

The primary opponents are the government and the prime minister, whose policies have resulted in tax hikes, the withdrawal of essential services, and general chaos. The criticism focuses on political unfairness, particularly regarding the car tax, which disproportionately affects rural areas, and the government's failure to address the persistent issue of gravel roads. Furthermore, the state's proposal to cease centralized planning is being criticized for undermining public confidence.

The opposition is aimed at policies that restrict property rights, particularly in the context of environmental protection and Natura areas, which impede economic activity. Criticism is directed at the government's actions, which have created a situation where the labeling of landowners ("declaring them a kulak") is being discussed.

The criticism is directed at the existing legal framework and state decisions which have created gaps—for example, in the sale of national defense land, where the state can no longer have a say. The unjustified exclusion of the renewable energy sector from the integrated permit procedure is also criticized. This criticism is policy-based and focuses on injustice or unreasonable administrative burden, rather than on specific individuals.