By Plenary Sessions: Vladimir Arhipov

The speaker is not expressing direct opposition, but rather offering constructive criticism regarding the current approach to regional policy. He/She challenges the concept of the "golden ring" and emphasizes that Harju County also faces many challenges that should not be ignored.

The text expresses clear criticism of the government's austerity policy, particularly concerning the decision to close the Consulate General. It questions the justification behind these decisions and asks directly why they were made. Crucially, the criticism remains focused on policy, avoiding any personal attacks.

They sharply criticize the ruling coalition and its austerity policy. They accuse the leader of the coalition party of demanding overly rapid cuts. The opposition is both principled and emotional, focusing heavily on the social impact of the policy. There are no signs of a willingness to compromise.

Direct opposition is not evident—rather, it raises constructive questions and concerns about the functioning of the current system. Criticism is expressed through questions, not as direct accusations.

Direct criticism is not expressed; instead, questions are posed constructively regarding the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ efforts to influence NATO allies. The approach is more investigative than accusatory.

The text expresses criticism regarding the government's fiscal policy, citing the previously lost 800 million euros as an example of prior issues. Furthermore, it systematically criticizes the lack of transparency inherent in the budget process.

Criticizes the previous government for scaring the public and suggests taking concrete steps instead. Criticism is also directed at NATO countries that have failed to meet the 2% defense spending target. The text mentions that "even the Social Democrats get it," referring to the negative impact of revoking voting rights, which implies criticism aimed at the Social Democrats.

The speaker does not express direct opposition, but gently criticizes the bureaucratic approach to language proficiency assessment. The criticism is constructive and aimed at improving the system, rather than being personal or sharp political attacks.