By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The main opponent is the government, which is criticized for passive leadership, increasing bureaucracy, and ignoring national interests while simply following European initiatives. The criticism is intense, covering both policy issues (sustainability reports, the ban on parking for commercial vehicles) and procedural flaws (rushing, inadequate coordination). Specific opponents also mentioned include former Climate Minister Michal and Maris Lauri, who promoted the draft bill. The possibility of compromise regarding the database bill is not mentioned; instead, its outright rejection is demanded.

The main opponents are the ruling coalition (the Reform Party, the Social Democrats, and Estonia 200), who stand accused of pursuing failed policies and lacking democratic legitimacy. Criticism is intense, alleging that the coalition lied before the elections and is employing "cruel games" and a blackmailing approach (for example, pressuring organizations representing people with disabilities). They are showing no readiness to compromise, demanding the rejection of draft legislation and the repeal of taxes.

The opposition is aimed directly at the Prime Minister and the government, who are being blamed for the failure of the car tax and the promotion of a state-centric ideology. The criticism is intense and personalized, demanding that the Prime Minister acknowledge authorship of the tax and repeal it. Any compromise regarding improvements to the tax is rejected as irrational.

The main criticism is directed at the coalition and the government regarding the tempo and manner in which the bill was processed, accusing them of violating the principles of good law-making. The criticism is also substantive, focusing on the real beneficiaries of money laundering and remote gambling who are associated with shady activities involving Russian, Belarusian, and Georgian citizens. The intensity of the opposition is high, as they are demanding the suspension of the second reading.

The primary criticism is aimed squarely at the Minister of Infrastructure (Mr. Leis), challenging both his competence regarding waste management issues and the transparency surrounding the financial implications of the forthcoming legislation. The criticism is rooted in policy and procedure, demanding accountability and a detailed breakdown concerning the proposed fees.

The main criticism is aimed at the Minister of Justice and the government, accusing them of evading political accountability and lacking transparency when assessing significant security risks. The criticism is both intense and procedural, culminating in a call to vote in favour of a motion of no confidence against the minister. Opposition to the prison rental agreement is strong, citing Sweden's policy line as rational for them but detrimental to Estonia.

The main opponents are the coalition led by the Reform Party (Reform Party, Eesti 200, Social Democrats), who are accused of violating laws and lacking democratic legitimacy. Criticism is directed both at policy (tax hikes, deficit) and procedures (the removal of Isamaa’s amendments from the vote). The government is openly called a "lying government," and compromise is ruled out, with demands for the rejection of the draft legislation.

The main opponents are the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, who are criticized for policies that are inconsistent and do not serve the interests of Estonian internal security. The opposition is intense and is culminating in a warning that a motion of no confidence will be filed against the Minister of Justice, because the government has chosen a strategically risky path.

The primary adversaries are the governing coalition and the parliamentary majority, who stand accused of violating the Rules of Procedure Act and employing an unconstitutional interpretation (a "blank check"). The criticism is intense, focusing specifically on procedural and rule-of-law violations, and labeling the coalition as a group suffering from a "legitimacy deficit." Compromise is ruled out concerning the majority's current operational logic, with a vow to firmly reject this interpretation in the future.

The main opponent is the government, which is sharply criticized both for its political choices (tax hikes, regulatory instability) and its overall stance. The criticism is intense and focuses on the government's inability to ensure economic growth, control inflation, and protect national interests within the context of the green transition. The government's actions are being labeled as pessimism-inducing and utterly incompetent, which rules out any compromise on the current path.

The main opponent is the Reform Party-led government and the Minister of Finance, who stand accused of flawed fiscal policy and misleading the public regarding cuts to administrative spending. The criticism is intense and policy-driven, focusing on tax hikes and the uncontrolled growth of government expenditures. Compromise has been ruled out, as the demand is for the draft budget to be rejected in its current form.