By Plenary Sessions: Juku-Kalle Raid

The speaker addresses Lauri Laats' claim regarding Jürgen Ligi's insults, but does not launch a direct attack against either Ligi or Laats. The disagreement lies in refuting the universality of Laats' assertion, specifically by stating that the speaker himself was not offended.

There is no direct criticism of opponents, but the speaker indirectly criticizes the situation where a protocol or historical vestige associated with the Estonian SSR remains relevant. The opposition is directed more toward the legacy of the past and the bureaucracy connected to it (a reference to a career communist) than toward specific political groups.

The main criticism is directed at the Moscow Patriarchate and Patriarch Kirill, who are accused of serving the interests of the Kremlin and declaring genocide a holy war. Furthermore, the speaker indirectly criticizes the political consistency of EKRE, highlighting the views of their star columnist and asking whether the party fully agrees with those views.

The opposition is strong and personal, directed primarily at the Eesti 200 party, criticizing their presence as nothing more than an unnecessary "stupid joke." Direct personal attacks are aimed at Gaute (Kivistik), whom he insults and targets with sarcastic remarks. He also employs the generalizing, derogatory term "Muiduleivasööjad" (freeloaders).

The criticism is aimed more at monitoring the fulfillment of political promises rather than direct opposition. The individuals named (Andres Sutt, Jaak Aab) are being called upon to confirm the previous agreement, which highlights the emphasis on political continuity.

No direct opposition is voiced, but the speaker casts doubt on the unusual speed with which the bill submitted by the EKRE faction is being processed. The criticism is aimed more at the procedure than at the policy or the individuals involved.

There is no outright confrontation; instead, a conditional proposal is put forward, aimed at refining the logic of the legislation. Criticism is absent; the focus is on a political solution.

Fierce criticism has been leveled at Isamaa and EKRE, who are referred to as "self-styled national parties." The criticism targets their political stance regarding their defense of the Moscow Patriarchate, a position that causes the speaker considerable astonishment.

The confrontation is aimed at a specific individual associated with smoking, who is then presented with a provocative proposal concerning a ban. The criticism is primarily personal, even though it ultimately leads to a regulatory question.

The main criticism is leveled against the Social Democrats, who suggested the Soviet monument could play a role in creating social cohesion—a role the speaker considered absolutely arbitrary and ridiculous. Procedurally, the bill's initiator (Jaak Valge) is criticized for submitting a simplistic and insufficiently considered proposal that does not resolve the monument’s future fate.