By Plenary Sessions: Andres Metsoja

Criticism is aimed at the government and the drafters of the bills, pointing out procedural errors, such as failing to involve the opposition during the drafting phase of the constitutional amendment bill. The confrontation is intense, with critics accusing the government of destroying stability and making the state unreliable, because the amendments were made "on emotion" and lack substance. There is also an element of personal irony regarding the handling of the bill, which seems to revolve around a single individual.

The standoff is directed against the central government and the prime minister, criticizing their inability to provide regulatory certainty in the energy sector and the unfair budget cuts imposed on rural areas. The criticism is politically and procedurally justified, focusing on the creation of bureaucracy and the lack of a comprehensive picture.

The primary criticism is aimed at the government and the ruling coalition, accusing them of shattering public trust, ignoring the concerns of entrepreneurs, and governing the country without any clear vision. The criticism is intense, focusing on both procedural flaws (stakeholder involvement occurs only at the last minute) and substantive errors (replacing necessary budget cuts with tax increases). The government's actions are being labeled as "extremely poor state management."

The opposition is directed against the draft bill (the creation of the Land and Spatial Planning Agency) and the consequences of the previous administrative reform (2017), which created a vacuum in planning. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, emphasizing that the proposed solution does not guarantee legal clarity or familiarity with local conditions. It criticizes the state's actions, which create conflicting priorities (e.g., renewable energy and bog restoration in the same areas).

The primary opposition is aimed at the governing coalition, which is being criticized both for procedural shortcomings (speed, failure to assess the impact) and for bad tax laws. The criticism is intense, implying that the government might be planning even greater tax hikes if the current flawed law is overturned. The criticism is clearly based on policy and procedure.

The opposition is aimed at the government's package of tax increases, particularly the motor vehicle tax law, the repeal of which the speaker's represented party (Isamaa) is demanding. The criticism is both political and substantive, questioning the taxes' contribution to the development of Estonia's economic environment.

The criticism is aimed at the government's inaction and illogical decisions, particularly concerning the closure of the education network and the appropriation of cash flows from RMK (State Forest Management Centre). It criticizes the Social Democrats (Sotsid) for dragging out the issue of voting rights and for their vague handling of the party's value framework. It further notes that the opposition (led by Isamaa) has offered solutions to urgent issues, which the coalition has failed to utilize.

The main criticism is aimed at the governing coalition's policies, particularly concerning the motor vehicle tax and the funding of public transport. The criticism is sharp, labeling the political decisions as unfair and foolish, and also criticizing the legislative procedure itself (omnibus bills). The opposition is policy-driven and focuses on the inefficiency of the government's actions.