By Agendas: Timo Suslov

The style of cooperation is open and constructive; the speaker supports the amendments to the law but seeks further information from the minister to ensure the maximum economic benefit of the bill. The speaker asks whether the topic has also been discussed in the Economic Cabinet, referencing the government's internal collaboration.

The style of cooperation is consensual and inclusive, emphasizing the involvement of several ministries (the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Defence) in the legislative process for the draft bill. All proposals submitted by the ministries received unanimous support from the committee.

The style of cooperation is strongly consensual and collaboration-oriented, emphasizing that all important decisions within the committee were made unanimously. Cooperation with the Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, Liisa-Ly Pakosta, who presented the draft bill, was noted. This cooperation demonstrates a smooth and unified procedural process.

The cooperative approach is consensual, stressing that there was unanimity among the commission members in supporting the proposal. It demonstrates a readiness to cooperate with the institution of the Chancellor of Justice, taking into account and discussing the supplementary comments submitted by the latter.

The speaker highlights the consensus decisions reached within the committee on procedural matters, such as placing the draft bill on the agenda and appointing the rapporteur. The speaker openly details the voting results (6 votes in favor of rejection, 4 against), indicating that the decision was made with majority support following a serious discussion. The speaker also refers to the position of Hendrik Johannes Terras, Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, regarding the procedure for submitting a motion of no confidence.

The style of cooperation is visible within the committee, where the appointment of the representative of the lead committee took place by a consensus decision. The substantive decision regarding the rejection of the draft was reached by a vote (6 for, 3 against), which indicates that there were differing opinions on the draft within the committee.

Cooperation is evident at the committee level, where the proposal to include the draft bill on the plenary agenda was a consensus decision. Regarding the substance of the matter, the speaker relies on the government's positions and the clarifications provided by the representative of the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture, thereby demonstrating cooperation with the executive branch in supporting the rejection of the draft bill.

The collaborative approach is evident in the internal work of the committee, which involved ministry experts (Mariko Jõeorg-Jurtšenko) to obtain their position. The committee achieved a clear consensus regarding the rejection of the draft proposal (8 votes in favor, 1 against), indicating an efficient decision-making process within the lead committee.