By Plenary Sessions: Vladimir Arhipov

It adopts a clear opposition stance regarding the energy policy of the minister and the government, criticizing their lack of trustworthiness and clarity. The criticism is primarily policy-based, focusing on specific promises and their fulfillment, rather than resorting to personal attacks.

Sharp criticism was leveled at the government and the bill’s proponents, accusing them of acting solely for the sake of power and attempting to divert attention away from ongoing scandals. It is claimed that the bill’s true objective is political gain, particularly in light of the upcoming Tallinn local elections. The criticism targets both the political substance and the underlying motives, with no mention made of any possibility for compromise.

The speaker avoids expressing direct criticism or taking an oppositional stance. Instead, he focuses on maintaining a constructive dialogue with the minister concerning the funding of sports facilities.

The speaker sharply criticizes the government's policies, accusing it of "verbal acrobatics" and dividing society. He compares the government's actions to the repressive policies of the Soviet Union regarding the restriction of religious freedom. The criticism targets both the political substance and the approach, emphasizing the danger the government's activities pose to national security.

It criticizes the government's tax policy and its impact on the welfare of the population. It questions the government's decision-making process, specifically inquiring about the coordination between coalition partners. The opposition is constructive, focusing on policy measures rather than personal attacks.

It directly criticizes the coalition, accusing it of opposing the bank tax and implementing an unfair tax system. The attacks are policy-focused, not personal, concentrating on specific policy choices. Opportunities for compromise are not mentioned; the position is categorical.

The speaker adopts a clear opposition stance toward the government while maintaining a constructive tone. Criticism is not directed at individuals but demands concrete answers regarding political decisions and greater inclusion of the opposition, citing public support.

It expresses veiled criticism regarding the decision-making process, which may be confined solely to the level of party leaders, but maintains a polite and constructive approach. It is not directly aggressive, but rather seeks clarification.