By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The opposition is directed against the government's policy, demanding quantitative justification for the necessity of the proposed legislative amendment. The criticism is policy-based and moderate, focusing on the lack of data concerning the scope of the problem that the law is intended to address.

The main opposition is aimed at the government's climate and tax policies, which are considered socially unjust. The criticism is policy-based, focusing on the disregard for social consequences related to the taxation of large families, pensioners, and people with disabilities.

The criticism focuses on procedural deficiencies in the preparation of the draft legislation, particularly the absence of an impact assessment and the use of vague definitions. There are no direct personal attacks or naming of opponents; instead, the emphasis is placed solely on the necessity of improving the quality of lawmaking.

The criticism is aimed at the actions of the government and the Ministry of Finance, particularly regarding their opposition to the bill currently under discussion and their plan to introduce a hybrid budget. The speaker references the government's official stance (a letter confirming they do not support the draft legislation) and calls into question the efficiency of the current activity-based budgeting system. The critique is both policy-driven and procedural.

Criticism is directed at the system that allows high-ranking state officials to receive undocumented salary supplements, which is considered humiliating and unfair. Skepticism is expressed regarding the support of other factions, despite the country being in a difficult economic situation. There is opposition to the secrecy and concealment characteristic of undemocratic states.

The main criticism is aimed at the government's energy policy, which favors intermittent energy production and spreads the myth that it is cheap. The opposition is both political and substantive, stressing that the current course will lead to energy crises, price shocks, and an increased environmental burden. Criticism is also directed at renewable energy producers, who should be responsible for bearing the additional CO2 costs resulting from this intermittency.