By Plenary Sessions: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The speaker is in strong opposition to the government ministers, leveling criticism at both the Minister of the Interior (over the voting rights of citizens from the aggressor state) and the Minister of Finance (regarding the budget procedure). The critique spans both policy (security) and procedural issues (Parliament’s role in the budget), includes personal attacks, and demonstrates zero willingness to seek compromise.

The primary confrontation is directed at the Prime Minister, who stands accused of repeatedly and publicly disseminating false information regarding the content of the Isamaa draft bill. The criticism is intense, focusing on the politician's incompetence in interpreting the legislation and misleading the public. Additionally, they criticize the Speaker of the Riigikogu for failing to refute the Prime Minister's misinformation.

The primary conflict is between the government and the minister, who is being sharply criticized for the dishonest and non-transparent methodology used in drafting the budget. The criticism focuses on procedural errors, such as concealing cuts via the reserve fund, and unreliable communication with the public.

The main confrontation is aimed at the Minister of the Interior and the Social Democrats, who stand accused of endangering internal security and systematically undermining national interests. The criticism is intense, based on both policy and values, and further accuses the coalition of internal opposition, mutually "neutralizing" one another, and neglecting the governance of the state. The opponent's views are labeled a "very weak solution" and "obscure rhetoric."

The criticism is not directed at specific opponents, but rather at the potential rigidity of the parliament’s rules of procedure, which could impede flexible work. The speaker demands that the proposal not be "shelved," which serves as indirect criticism toward overly bureaucratic procedures.

The primary confrontation is aimed at the government and the ministers, who are being criticized for incompetence and a lack of answers. Separately highlighted is the stance of the coalition partner Eesti 200 regarding needs-based benefits, which conflicts with the government's activities. The criticism is intense, focusing both on the substance of the policy (social benefits) and procedural errors (the Prime Minister's directive versus the Riigikogu's decision), and culminates in a proposal to reject the draft bill.

The criticism is directed at the "esteemed members of the coalition" who sought to process the draft bill hastily and improperly, thereby circumventing the required procedure. The opposition is procedural and institutional, accusing the coalition of underestimating the parliament.