By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

Criticism is aimed at the presenter of the draft bill and the developers of the legal amendment, who are accused of ignorance and procedural failure. The opposition is based on both policy and procedure, focusing on the absence of an impact assessment and the failure to take consequences into account. The speaker notes that the consequences of applying for a grey passport were not discussed during the drafting of the bill.

The main criticism is directed at the Reform Party, which is accused of expanding its sphere of influence and centralizing power through the subordination of an institution with significant geological expertise. The criticism is political and procedural, calling into question the trust among coalition partners.

Criticism is aimed at the government's tax policy, which is described as having been introduced without impact analysis and via a "trial-and-error method." Previous economic arguments that blocked the addition of public holidays are also being criticized. Furthermore, the decline in work efficiency is linked to the increase in low-skilled foreign labor.

The main opponent is the executive branch, particularly the prime minister, whose decisions made during his previous tenure as climate minister concerning the preparation of phosphorite studies are being called into question. The criticism targets the procedures, the lack of transparency, and the preference shown to foreign companies over Estonia’s own capabilities.

The address contains neither criticism nor opposition; it is a neutral political inquiry directed at the head of government. There is absolutely no reference to opponents or to policies under criticism.

The main opponents are the coalition parties, who are being criticized for their personal conduct and drug use. The criticism is intense and focuses on the ethical dimension, suggesting that their personal habits are influencing national decisions.