By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The cooperative style is interrogative and demands specific answers and a timeline regarding the future comprehensive bill from the government representative (the rapporteur). There is no indication of a willingness to compromise; rather, the focus is on demanding information and accountability.

The style of cooperation is formal and scrutinizing, presenting the minister with pointed questions regarding deficiencies in lawmaking and practical application. There is no data available regarding inter-party cooperation or willingness to compromise.

Insufficient data.

The speaker is cooperating within their faction (a meeting with the Data Protection Inspectorate) and calls upon the Ministry of Justice to act swiftly in drafting the legislative amendments. He/She expresses hope that the discussion with the Minister will prove fruitful, demonstrating an openness to substantive problem-solving.

Not enough data.

The speaker demonstrates a willingness to collaborate by acknowledging the significance of the issue raised by the presenter and asking clarifying questions. They are open to finding a solution, although they express doubts about the ideal nature of the proposed solution, which indicates a readiness for further discussion.

Information is lacking. The speaker is clearly operating from an oppositional stance, posing sharp questions to the government, and the pursuit of cooperation or compromise is not reflected in the speeches delivered.

The speaker highlights previous successful collaboration with the minister, suggesting an openness to relevant debate and a substantive discussion of the issues. Furthermore, an attempt is being made through body language to identify like-minded individuals (specifically, the session chairman, Toomas), which points to a desire to garner broader support for the requirement of clarity.