By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

Fierce opposition is aimed at the ruling coalition, especially the Reform Party, which is accused of breaking promises made to pensioners and burdening poorer people. Criticism is also leveled at the "European Union's leftist bureaucracy" and the ideological dreams of EU officials. The politician criticizes opponents for their lack of knowledge and indifference, demanding a permanent end to regulatory "stupidity."

The primary criticism is aimed at the government and the Reform Party, who are accused of abandoning Southeast Estonia and pursuing a failed regional policy. The opposition is intense and highly political, criticizing the government’s plans (the introduction of cheap labor) as a short-sighted and detrimental path leading to the ruin of the nation-state.

The main criticism is directed at the Reform Party, citing the discrepancy in their gender equality policy and their practice of nominating only male candidates for high-ranking positions. The government's actions are also under fire for ignoring the Chancellor of Justice's warnings about the unconstitutionality of the state budget. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, and it also uses behavioral incidents involving well-known figures (Taavi Rõivas) to provide context for the draft legislation.

Strong opposition is aimed at the government's green transition policy and its economic implementation, which is criticized as being system-disrupting and serving the business interests of specific entrepreneurs. The criticism is policy-driven and intense, accusing politicians of causing real economic damage under the guise of green energy rhetoric. There are no signs of compromise; instead, the demand is for a complete change in the current course.

The main opponents are ideological movements that promote views based on gender as a social construct, referring to this as the feminist, postmodern, and Marxist perspective. The criticism is intense and value-driven, accusing them of replacing reality with an ideological scheme and blurring the lines between truth and feeling. The opposition is also directed at the Ministry of the Interior's policy, which permits name changes without a medical gender determination.

The opposition targets institutional pressure and viewpoints that challenge the absolute nature of free speech, while indirectly criticizing the Prosecutor General's remarks concerning the initiation of criminal proceedings. The criticism specifically addresses the value-based and legal framework that permits penalizing individuals for holding "wrong viewpoints."

The main opponents are the Reform Party and the government, who are accused of making decisions in the interests of the European Union’s green policy and big businessmen, rather than in the name of the people. The criticism is intense, accusing the opposing side of lying, ridiculing the people, and writing the draft bill at the behest of manufacturers. Compromise is ruled out, with calls to suspend the reading of the draft bill.

The opposition is directed at the claims made by the Commission's representative, particularly regarding the alleged lack of increase in administrative burden, which, in the speaker's view, contradicts the written information. The criticism is procedural and focuses on the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the information presented, demanding clarification regarding the actual increase in workload.