By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The opposition is aimed at the concept of gender neutrality, which is being criticized on cultural and ideological grounds. The critique is presented more symbolically and humorously, rather than as a direct political attack against a specific policy.

The primary groups facing criticism are the bill's proponents (the government/minister) and the wind energy developers, whose economic interests the draft legislation allegedly serves. The criticism is intense, targeting both the procedure (reduction of the EIA, rushing the process) and the underlying ideology ("climate activism"). Compromise is ruled out, as the EKRE faction opposes the bill and deems it unacceptable.

The main opponents are the bill's supporters in the Riigikogu and the Brussels bureaucracy, which is imposing ideological standards. The criticism is intense and ideological, accusing opponents of subjecting entrepreneurship to left-liberal values and communist practices. There is also opposition to the bill being processed in the Economic Affairs Committee, with the counter-proposal being the creation of an Ideology Committee.

The criticism focuses on the lack of clarity regarding the financial data and the distribution of costs presented by the rapporteur, particularly in the security and renewable energy sectors. There is no direct confrontation or personal attacks; rather, the demand is for clarification of the policy and greater specification of budget details.

The primary targets of the criticism are the Reform Party-led government, Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, and Minister of Social Protection Signe Riisalo. The criticism is mainly procedural and policy-based, accusing the government of bureaucratic stalling, confusing its priorities, and ceding control over population policy management. Specific criticism is leveled at the paralyzed operation and lack of transparency of the Government Commission on Population Policy.

The criticism is aimed at the authors of the draft bill and the committee’s rapporteur, who failed to answer simple questions or analyze the impact on SMEs. The opposition targets both the substance of the policy and the procedural rushing, which harms the business environment and creates unfair competition for local entrepreneurs. There is no mention of the possibility of a compromise regarding the draft bill in its current form; instead, they are urged to take a step back.

The criticism is directed at the government and the drafters of the bill, faulting them for misplacing priorities (simplifying bureaucracy at the expense of children’s safety). Regarding the second bill, he criticizes the minister for avoiding a direct economic assessment, suggesting the bill was poorly prepared ("cobbled together").