By Plenary Sessions: Riina Solman

The primary criticism targets the Foreign Minister's actions. He stands accused of undermining Estonian foreign policy and acting contrary to the interests of our biggest allies. The criticism is intense and policy-driven, directly linking the minister's policies with antisemitism at Estonian universities. The Prime Minister's responses to the earlier question were brief and caused awkwardness, suggesting a clear desire to avoid the subject.

The primary criticism is directed at the government and officials implementing austerity measures, who are accused of lacking analysis, breaking promises, and ignoring the regional policy impact. The criticism is intense and focuses on the loss of trust, legislative chaos, and the creation of security risks (the closure of the Jõhvi courthouse).

The criticism is aimed at the rampant bureaucracy and administrative burden within the country. Furthermore, the speaker questions the practicality of implementing more transparent monitoring of ministers' expense claims if doing so merely creates a new administrative burden. The objection is procedural and focused squarely on efficiency.

The main opponents are the coalition, which rejected Isamaa’s amendments, and the level of the Ministry of Social Affairs that has pressured for the relaxation of gender reassignment regulation. The criticism is intense and focuses on procedural errors, such as moving the control mechanism away from public scrutiny and shifting authority from the independent judiciary to administrative agencies. He/She also criticizes the analysis commissioned by family doctor Eero Merilind from a law firm, which failed to address practical security vulnerabilities.

The main criticism is aimed at Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs Liisa-Ly Pakosta and the drafters of the bill, who are forcing unconstitutional conditions (the creation of supplementary lists) into the explanatory memorandum. The criticism is both procedural and policy-based, specifically asking who is still pushing this controversial provision and why.

The main opponent is the Reform Party and the governments led by Kaja Kallas, who are accused of hostility towards demographic policy, cutting benefits, and breaking promises. The criticism is intense, targeting both specific political choices (the reduction of child benefits) and procedural issues (the closure of the special committee on the demographic crisis and the lack of transparency of the government commission). The speaker considers the government's stance on natality issues to be rigid and unserious.

Fierce opposition is aimed at the Ministry of the Interior and the Interior Minister (SDE) regarding their policy on citizenship liberalization, accusing them of political corruption aimed at creating new Russian-speaking voters. The criticism is intense and ideological, linking these political choices to debates over voting rights and labeling it "ideologically corrupted thinking." It also indirectly criticizes the pessimistic stance of the Ministry of Social Affairs' analysts concerning demographics.

The main criticism is aimed at the Ministry of Social Affairs, which is accused of "fast-tracking" sensitive socio-political changes at the regulation level, thereby circumventing the control of the Riigikogu. He/She also criticizes the Foreign Minister's conduct in UN votes concerning Israel and terrorism. The criticism is both procedural, political, and value-based.

The main targets of criticism are the government broadly, Prime Minister Kristen Michal, the Minister of Foreign Affairs (due to the change in course), and the Ministers of Finance (for avoiding responsibility regarding Eesti Energia). The criticism is intense both politically (changing values) and procedurally (Jürgen Ligi's constant interference). The speaker accuses the government of jeopardizing Estonia's security interests and the safety of the Jewish community.

The primary opposition is aimed at the coalition and the majority of the Social Affairs Committee, who rejected Isamaa's four "very reasonable" amendments. The criticism is intense and focuses on procedural rushing and the disregard for risks to children's safety. Specific presenters (Eero, Madis Timpson) are urged to engage in dialogue and answer questions, rather than evading them.