By Plenary Sessions: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The main opponents are the Reform Party and the government coalition as a whole, who are criticized for fiscal irresponsibility, creating instability, and violating established good practice during the processing of legislative amendments. Criticism is particularly sharp against the Social Democrats, who are accused of hypocrisy because they support a tax reform that harms low-wage earners. A compromise is only seen in postponing the elimination of the tax ‘hump’ or raising the threshold, but not in accepting the government’s current plan.

The main confrontation is with the Reform Party and the coalition led by the Prime Minister, who are accused of deliberate inaction and avoiding the security issue. The criticism is intense, accusing the Reform Party of undermining the will of other parties (including the coalition partner). The speaker also refers to the previous prime minister (Kaja Kallas) and her earlier stance to demonstrate the ambiguity of the Reform Party's position.

The criticism is aimed at the inaction or ambiguity of the presiding officer of the session, who failed to introduce the procedure for conducting the session in light of technical problems, and failed to ensure the notification of Riigikogu members via signature verification. The objection is purely procedural and centers on deficiencies in the rules for conducting the session.

The primary opponents are the Government of the Republic, the Minister of the Interior, and the Social Democrats, who are criticized for their policies, not personally. The criticism is intense, focusing on political inconsistency (e.g., the consolidation of the Defence League versus the rhetoric of a combat situation) and the undermining of security through tax policy. There is no willingness to compromise, as the government's actions are considered to be in stark contradiction with Estonia's vital interests.

The speaker is clearly in opposition, leveling criticism both at the current government (for its inaction in pursuing accelerated capability development) and indirectly at the previous Minister of Defense, Laanet, for reducing positions within the Defense League. The critique targets specific political decisions and the failure to provide solutions for advancing defense capabilities.

The main criticism is directed at the Ministry of Education and the minister, citing administrative failure and the evasion of responsibility for the fiasco involving the joint entrance exams. The criticism is intense and centers on the procedural injustice that directly impacted young people. The opposing viewpoint (that everyone had a backup plan) is regarded as ignoring the unjust consequences.