By Plenary Sessions: Riina Sikkut

The primary opposition is aimed at the government and the prime minister, criticizing the impact of the Swedish prisoner agreement on security, healthcare, and the economy. The criticism is both substantive and procedural, demanding clarification regarding cost coverage, including healthcare expenses and language requirements. Furthermore, a motion of no confidence is being filed concerning the necessity of the position of Minister of Entrepreneurship.

The primary criticism is aimed at the governing powers (the coalition/government), who are accused of lacking accountability and making decisions that contradict the recommendations of the Fiscal Council. The criticism is based on both policy and procedure, focusing on the disregard for domestic budgetary rules and the addition of unfunded expenditures. Warnings are being issued regarding the long-term negative consequences of these short-sighted decisions.

The opposition is directed at the current form of the draft law and its inadequate privacy safeguards. Furthermore, criticism is leveled against the wrongful attribution of Kalle Grünthal’s positions (a procedural and personal correction), and concern is expressed regarding the privacy-infringing nature of the Estonia 200 concept of the "personal state."

The main opponent is the Prime Minister and the government, who are being accused of demagoguery and drafting "the most irresponsible budget." The criticism is both political and economic, focusing on the unfair benefits the wealthy receive from abolishing the tax curve. Compromise on the government's current tax plan is ruled out, as it is ineffective and unjust.

Direct confrontation with specific political groupings is not articulated. Indirectly, criticism is leveled against the quality of work of the Riigikogu, the legislative body, which results in unjust or confusing laws. The criticism is procedural and aimed at the lack of clarity in the legislation.

The criticism is aimed at the actions of the government (or the minister) regarding the alleged delay in planning the defense industry park and the unclear vision for the salary structure in the education sector. The opposition is based on policy and performance, demanding clarity and truth for the citizens.

There are no direct opponents or specific groups being criticized; the focus is instead directed at shortcomings in market regulation, particularly within the non-bank credit market. The criticism targets systemic risks and consumer behavior patterns (specifically, prioritizing the monthly repayment amount over the total cost rate).

It opposes the government and the Minister of Defense, criticizing their approach to the requirement for building shelters and the government’s overall political instability. The criticism targets shifts in political stances (regarding the car tax and wages) and the procedure for handling draft legislation (specifically demanding a new official position). Furthermore, the validity of the decision reached consensually within the National Defense Committee is being called into question.

The criticism is aimed at the actions of the minister and the government, which have allowed repeated major financial blunders. The objection is procedural and systemic, demanding clarification of responsibility and changes to the system to prevent tens of millions in erroneous advance payments in the future.

A strong opposition stance regarding the government's immigration, regional, and economic policies, criticizing the minister for vague answers and a lack of numerical data. The criticism is directed at specific political decisions (avoiding the quota through exceptions, loosening salary criteria) and the Reform Party's previous positions on salary criteria. Personal criticism relates to Lauri Laats' perception of regional policy in Mustamäe.

The main confrontation is aimed at the government and its ministers (Keldo, Ligi, the Prime Minister), criticizing their policies for increasing social inequality and failing to achieve the state’s strategic objectives. The criticism is sharp and policy-driven, focusing on the deficiencies in the government’s plans regarding security, productivity, and the fairness of the tax structure. No willingness to compromise is expressed; instead, compensatory measures are demanded.