By Plenary Sessions: Tõnis Mölder

The speaker emphasized cooperation, citing the consensus decisions reached in the Economic Affairs Committee regarding bringing the draft bill to the plenary session and concluding the first reading. He/She demonstrated openness to further discussions, noting that various parliamentary factions and interest groups have expressed interest in being involved.

The collaborative style is courteous, involving respectful communication with the minister and the expectation that ministry officials will be engaged to provide detailed data. Furthermore, solutions are being sought regarding incentives for renewable energy projects, which signals an openness to political compromise.

Demonstrates courtesy and appreciation towards the minister by thanking him for participating in the debate, which signals a willingness for procedural cooperation. The objective is to obtain clear answers from the ministry regarding the substance of the amendments.

The style of cooperation is consensual and inclusive, as the committee made procedural decisions by consensus, and the discussions involved both ministry representatives and members of various factions. The speaker neutrally conveys the positions of the different parties, demonstrating openness to a broad-based discussion.

The speaker supports and defends the government's new bill, shielding it from criticism leveled by the opposition. This commitment to cooperation is demonstrated by defending the government's approach and citing positive assessments from key partners such as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Central Union of Employers.

The cooperation style is measured and appreciative, as the speaker affirms the partial validity of the previous speaker's statement while simultaneously correcting the historical context. This demonstrates a willingness to acknowledge the contributions of others, even when offering a correction.

The speaker collaborates with external stakeholders, communicating with renewable energy developers to bring their concerns into the legislative process. In the Riigikogu chamber, this takes the form of a formal dialogue with the minister, seeking clarification.

The remark was directed straight at the presenter to pose a question, demonstrating participation in the discussion. There is no evidence of seeking cooperation or compromise with other political groups. Insufficient data.

The speaker himself is the initiator of one of the bills and strongly emphasizes the necessity of reaching a reasonable compromise and achieving precise wording regarding the two similar drafts. He calls for a broad consensus that transcends inter-factional disagreements, stressing that this is a prerequisite for amending the Constitution.

The speaker begins by acknowledging the prime ministerial candidate’s previous work, setting a polite tone. They then demand specific guidelines and clarity from the coalition on complex legislative issues, indicating a willingness to engage in dialogue but a demanding stance regarding the necessary answers.

Insufficient Data

There is not enough data.

Based on the data, direct cooperation with other political parties is not visible; rather, answers and documents are being demanded from the executive branch. Nevertheless, the speaker points to the importance of broad-based inclusion when drafting development plans.

The speaker is cooperating with colleagues, submitting an interpellation to the Minister of the Interior alongside Jaak Aab. This demonstrates a willingness to form coalitions in order to raise specific political issues in parliament.