By Plenary Sessions: Vladimir Arhipov

The speaker sharply criticized the government and voiced support for the Centre Party, asserting that the true purpose of the proposed bill is to weaken that specific party. He accused his opponents of adopting urgent bills without proper analysis and engaging in political calculation, especially in connection with the power struggle currently underway in Tallinn.

The opposition adopts a clearly oppositional stance toward the government and the minister, criticizing their policies regarding tax hikes and benefit cuts. Specifically, they criticize the decisions to reduce support for large families and cut the allowance for single pensioners. The opposition is policy-focused and constructive.

It directly criticizes the government’s policy, particularly the formality of engagement and the lack of results. The opposition is policy-centric, focusing on procedural shortcomings and the government’s failure to fulfill its promises in the areas of pensions and education.

It sharply criticizes the governing coalition, accusing it of disregarding the interests of the people and dragging its feet on political decisions. It stresses that the VAT bill has been before the Riigikogu for the fourth time now, without any outcome. It criticizes specific ministers (referencing the minister who dubbed the measure a "robbery tax") as well as the government's strategic decisions concerning the railway sector.

Clear opposition is expressed regarding the infrastructure tax, but this is done constructively by offering alternatives. Criticism is directed at the substance of political decisions, not at individuals personally. On the issue of foreign missions, direct opposition is not voiced; instead, the government's positions are supported.

A direct opposition stance is not evident. Instead, it expresses constructive concern regarding the practical implementation of the government's education policy, focusing on identifying problems and seeking solutions.

Avoids direct criticism of specific individuals or parties. The main criticism is directed against excessive bureaucracy and regulation at the EU level. It emphasizes the need to avoid "excessive interference in the sovereignty of member states" and "over-regulation," which could stifle innovation and development.

Criticism is leveled at the efficacy of the government’s anti-drug campaign, emphasizing that the current measures have failed to yield results. The tone is not overtly aggressive; rather, it calls for explanations and superior solutions. The focus of the critique is on the policy’s effectiveness, not the individuals themselves.