By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

Strong opposition is directed at the government and former Climate Minister Kristen Michal. The criticism is intense and focuses on procedural deficiencies (the absence of impact assessments) and the poor quality of the policy, which has been deemed an "utter lack of quality." Compromise has been ruled out, with demands for a moratorium to be imposed on the climate law initiative.

The main opponents are the coalition parties, especially the Reform Party (tax policy, poor governance) and the Social Democrats (the issue of voting rights, whom they accuse of holding the coalition hostage). The criticism is intense, focusing on the low quality of the politics, procedural violations (tailoring legislation to suit a single individual), and labeling the government's actions as "senseless policy" or "governance failures."

The primary target is the Prime Minister and the government, who stand accused of manipulating budget figures and hypocrisy, particularly concerning defense spending. The criticism is intense, focusing on the substance of the policy and the contradiction between the government's rhetoric and the actual budget figures. The speaker accuses the government of misleading the public and attempting to conceal the true growth in administrative costs by cutting ammunition expenditures.

The primary opponent is the government and the prime minister, who are intensely criticized both for the substance of their economic policy (raising consumption taxes, eroding economic confidence) and for procedural violations (disregarding sound legislative practice). The criticism is robust, accusing the government of setting a "black record" in the sheer number of protests from business organizations and for the careless management of state finances.

The main opponents are the governing coalition and the parliamentary majority, who are criticized both for their political choices (tax hikes, exacerbating the recession) and for procedural violations. The speaker accuses the majority of blocking Isamaa's alternative budget and breaking the law, which he views as political revenge and an undermining of democracy. Separately, the government is criticized for threatening to zero out the funding for the Estonian Union of Pensioners' Associations, deeming this humiliating retaliation.

The main opponents are the parties of the ruling coalition (the Reform Party, the Social Democrats, and Eesti 200), who are sharply criticized on the grounds of both policy (tax hikes) and ethics (broken promises, lack of mandate). The criticism is intense, accusing the opponents of ignoring interest groups and engaging in political sadism. The speaker asserts that the government’s action lacks even the slightest degree of political legitimacy.

The main opponent is the ruling coalition, which is accused of imposing policy using a top-down approach and employing rhetoric about defending the economy that is completely disconnected from reality. The criticism targets both specific political choices (tax hikes) and the inability to manage state finances, leading critics to label the government as temporary and its policies as irrational.

The criticism is aimed directly at the ruling coalition (Reform Party, Estonia 200, Social Democrats), accusing them of breaking election promises and lacking democratic legitimacy when levying tax increases. The criticism is primarily policy- and procedure-based, accusing the government of severing dialogue with the public and enacting anti-business policies. He calls the government's actions "futility" and a "leadership failure."