By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The speaker is clearly playing an opposition role, criticizing the coalition's failure to deliver on promises to reduce the administrative burden. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, demanding answers on how to address the suspicions of unconstitutional conduct.

The main opponents are the Ministry of Climate, the Reform Party, and renewable energy developers among large corporations, who are accused of pursuing personal gain and disregarding national priorities. Criticism is strongly directed at the lack of transparency in the subsidy schemes and illegal activities (companies operating without a license). The speaker accuses the government of caring not about the Estonian people or the state, but about their "buddies," hinting at corruption.

The main criticism is aimed at the Reform Party, which is accused of discriminating against female colleagues and of hypocrisy regarding social policy issues. The criticism is intense and focuses on conduct, accusing the government of engaging in substitute activities instead of managing the economy. The motives of the opposing side are being questioned ("Are you trying to save face?").

The confrontation is aimed at the rapporteur and the government, who are sharply criticized for their inability and unwillingness to resolve the issue of indexing reservists' compensation. The criticism is both political and procedural (citing delays and technical excuses) and is intense, openly expressing a loss of confidence in the opponent.

The primary adversary is the government led by the Reform Party, specifically referring to the administrations of Kaja Kallas and Kristen Michal. The criticism is intense and centers on a lack of political will and the inability to solve the demographic crisis, as well as inconsistency in security policy. The government is accused of abdicating responsibility and ignoring the demographic crisis in the coalition agreement.

The main criticism is directed at the Estonian Health Board and, more broadly, national health policy, which, in the speaker's assessment, has failed to acknowledge the dangers associated with COVID vaccines. The criticism is policy- and data-driven, calling into question the conclusions and actions of official authorities. The intensity of the criticism is moderate, expressed through direct questioning and the juxtaposition of data.

The speaker occupies a critically oppositional stance, calling into question the reliability of the minister's promises and the transparency of strategic agreements. The criticism targets both the substance and the implementation of the policy, demanding evidence-based answers, particularly concerning the mitigation of environmental risks. There is no mention of seeking compromise; the focus remains squarely on demanding accountability.

The main opponent is the Reform Party and former Minister of Economic Affairs Kristen Michal, who is accused of deliberately causing Nordica’s downfall with the aim of privatizing the company cheaply. The criticism is intense, focusing on management errors, the avoidance of responsibility, and a pattern where state funds vanish. The speaker also criticizes ministers who do not even bother to appear before Riigikogu committees to give an account.