By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The opposition is aimed at the minister or government that introduced the draft legislation, severely criticizing procedural deficiencies. The criticism centers on both policy and procedure, specifically highlighting the absence of an impact assessment and the arbitrary determination of fine amounts.

The confrontation is aimed at the current economic policy and its outcomes, particularly concerning the assertions that climate goals are supposed to have a positive impact on the economy. The criticism is specifically leveled against the stance taken by the President of the Bank of Estonia, but more broadly, it touches upon the management of the economic recession and the overall failure of the policy.

The main opposition is directed at the e-voting system and its administrators (the National Electoral Committee, RIA), who are accused of lacking transparency, concealing technical errors, and maintaining excessive control. The Reform Party is indirectly criticized as the system’s primary political beneficiary, receiving a disproportionately large share of the vote. The criticism is systemic and procedural, focusing on a lack of trust and the risk of corruption.

The main confrontation is aimed at the minister and the government, sharply criticizing unethical behavior and a conflict of interest during the execution of the state procurement. The criticism is both procedural (the biased nature of the tender conditions) and personal, touching upon the minister's previous work at Semetron and the spouse's involvement in the field hospital business.

The criticism is directed at the government or the ministry (minister) responsible for the content of the "Eesti 2035" development strategy. The opposition is policy-based, centering on the strategy’s shortcomings and the lack of goals regarding the preservation of Estonian children’s cultural ties. The speaker further criticizes the government’s inability to foresee measures for maintaining the cultural connections of other growing communities (Muslims) as well.

Criticism is directed at the actions of the responsible minister (Signe Riisalo) and the Ministry of Social Affairs, particularly concerning the drafting of the new regulation on educational requirements. The opposition is intense and centers on procedural shortcomings (the absence of an impact analysis and proper inclusion/involvement) and political decisions (a fundamentally different approach to requirements for various groups of employees).

The opposition is directed both at those who underestimate the prestige of the Estonian language and at members of parliament who disrupt the order of the session with rude comments and snickering. The criticism targets the procedure itself and the disregard for the seriousness of the topic (the Estonian language).

The opposition is directed at the Prime Minister and the government's political rhetoric concerning the linking of the green transition and security. The criticism is policy-based, demanding a concrete justification from the government.

The main confrontation is with the government and its ministers, who are criticized both for their political choices (sex education, family benefits) and their actions (failure to respond, unclear use of public funds). The criticism is intense and covers both substantive and procedural aspects, accusing the government of endangering children's safety and ignoring the demographic crisis.

The criticism is aimed at the speed and methods of implementing the education reform, pointing out that transitioning to Estonian as the language of instruction in just a year and a half is too rapid. The opposition is politically motivated, focusing on the risk of declining quality and the shortage of specialists resulting from the government's decisions.

The opposing stance is directed at the Minister and the executive branch, whose verbal explanation is being called into question, citing the explanatory memorandum's contradictory content regarding animal-based food products. The criticism targets the policy's transparency, accuracy, and the obligation to inform consumers.

The opposition is aimed at the government's policies, particularly the levying of the car tax without exceptions and the inconsistencies within the immigration policy. The criticism is policy- and performance-based, calling into question the government's calculations and the efficacy of the regulations. Furthermore, clarification is being demanded regarding the tax contributions made by Ukrainian men.