By Plenary Sessions: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The primary criticism is aimed at the actions of the minister and the government, accusing them of pitting local governments against landowners. The opposition is intense, focusing on the poor quality of the draft legislation, inadequate analysis, and the violation of constitutional principles. The speaker considers this confrontation to be ugly and despicable.

The main opponents are the ruling coalition (especially the Reform Party and the Social Democrats), who are accused of lying and continuing to pursue dishonest policies. The criticism is intense and targets both the substance of the policy (the tax hump) and ethical issues (breaking promises, lack of statesmanship). It accuses the coalition of being trapped by harmful dogmas and being unwilling to implement sensible solutions. Compromise is out of the question unless the government is prepared to admit its mistake.

The primary criticism is aimed at the governing coalition, which is accused of ignoring substantive arguments and continuing poor procedural practices. The criticism is intense, focusing both on the substance of the policy (moral decay) and procedural issues (conflict with the Rules of Procedure Act). Compromise is ruled out in the final vote, as the faction will vote against the bill.

The primary criticism is aimed at the governing coalition, particularly the Minister of the Interior and the Social Democrats (SDE), who stand accused of lacking political will and clarity regarding security issues. The criticism addresses both the political substance (the absence of solutions) and the procedure (the failure to implement the coalition agreement and the arrangement of illegal schemes). The Interior Minister’s response is viewed as "predictably regrettable and empty."

Criticism is primarily directed at the governing coalition (Reform Party, Social Democrats, Estonia 200) and the chairman of the leading committee. The criticism is both procedural (unlawful bundling of amendments) and substantive (lack of political will regarding internal security issues, failed points of the coalition agreement). The speaker suspects the Reform Party of malicious, deliberate action concerning the issue of voting rights and deems the Minister of the Interior's criticism inadequate. They demand the termination or suspension of the bill's proceedings.

The main opponent is the Reform Party and the Prime Minister, who are accused of lacking political will and shifting responsibility. The criticism is intense and focuses on the government's inaction and the futility of the coalition agreement concerning internal security issues. Government initiatives have been rejected as insufficient or unfeasible.

The primary opposition is directed at the government-initiated draft election law and the misleading claims about taxes made by the representative of the Reform Party. The criticism is both policy-based (concerning the security and lack of oversight of e-voting) and procedural (involving the violation of the House Rules and Procedures Act when combining amendments). The opposition is intense; the Isamaa faction refuses to support the bill in the final vote.

Strong opposition is aimed at the ruling coalition, particularly the Social Democrats, who are being accused of initiating a cascade of taxes and exhibiting ideological inconsistency. The criticism is primarily procedural (violating standard good legislative practice) and political (damaging the economy and imposing unfair taxes). Compromise has been ruled out, with the proposal being to reject the sugar tax bill during its first reading.