By Plenary Sessions: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The main opponents are the prime minister and the government, who are being criticized for incompetence, strategic passivity, and a lack of analysis. The criticism is intense and accusatory, particularly regarding the government’s silence during EU negotiations and the financial disarray within the ministries.

Criticism is aimed at the President of the Republic and the government/prime minister, who are accused of failing to reach an agreement regarding national security interests prior to the parliamentary debate. The President's potential appeal to the Supreme Court is viewed as an escalation of tensions and beneficial only to certain political forces. The amendments proposed by the Centre Party are criticized as making no substantive changes and potentially further restricting religious freedom.

The direct opposition is aimed at the stance of Jaan Toots, Narva's leading politician, who wants to halt the transition to Estonian-language education, calling it a failed experiment. Indirectly, he also criticizes the government (the minister) for insufficient oversight and failure to provide resources during the education system transition. Furthermore, he criticizes the quality of the government's responses.

The primary criticism is aimed at the previous minister (Signe Riisalo) and her policies concerning the Health Insurance Fund and family benefits. The criticism is both policy-driven and ethics-based (bonuses, summer retreats), calling into question the governing party’s internal consistency and unity.

The opposition is directed at the requirement for the precise formulation and categorization of questions, as mandated by the chair of the session or the procedural rules. The criticism is procedural and of moderate intensity, emphasizing that strict wording does not improve the substance of the answers.

The confrontation targets the government's policy (the HLÜ liquidation bill) and the conduct of the ministers (the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Finance), who are criticized for bypassing parliamentary discussion. The criticism is intense, and any compromise on the bill is ruled out; instead, they demand its rejection and the drafting of a new proposal. Furthermore, the inflexibility of the session chair in allowing questions is also criticized.

The main opponents are the Riigikogu Board and the ruling coalition. The criticism is primarily directed against procedural violations (the bundling of amendments, the 51-vote requirement) and the government's tax policy. It accuses the Board of failing to fulfill its duty of diligence and killing the substantive work of the Riigikogu, claiming that the Board "is hiding behind the committee."