By Months: Timo Suslov
Total Months: 8
Fully Profiled: 8
10.2025
1 Speeches
The statement contains no direct criticism or opposition; rather, it is aimed at the minister for the purpose of obtaining explanations and economic analysis. Insufficient data.
06.2025
1 Speeches
No opposition exists; the speaker notes that not a single proposal was received by the deadline for submitting amendments, which suggests either widespread support or passive opposition. No criticism is being directed toward any interest group or political opponent.
05.2025
1 Speeches
There is no opposition. The speech focuses on highlighting the consensus reached within the committee and conveying procedural decisions.
04.2025
2 Speeches
Not enough data.
03.2025
16 Speeches
The opposition is directed at a draft bill which seeks to impose financial coercive measures for the absence of government members from committees, deeming this disproportionate. The criticism is primarily political-philosophical (ideological) and procedural, rather than being aimed at specific individuals. The objection is based on the view that the legal provisions governing ministerial responsibility are already adequate.
12.2024
1 Speeches
The opposition is aimed at the initiator of the draft bill (Helir-Valdor Seeder) and his proposal to amend citizenship restrictions. The criticism is procedural and policy-based, emphasizing the government’s position that the bill may be disproportionate to the desired objective. It is also noted that access to archived data from the criminal records register has been available since 2006, which diminishes the necessity of the draft bill.
03.2024
3 Speeches
The opposition is directed against the initiators of the draft bill, whose representative was named (Ants Frosch). The criticism is policy-driven, focusing on the bill's shortcomings, specifically concerning the excessive burden placed on local governments and the lack of balance. The opposition is firm, as the committee proposed rejecting the bill.
02.2024
1 Speeches
The opposition is directed at the bill proposed by its initiator (EKRE representative Ants Frosch), which the committee recommended rejecting by a majority vote. The criticism is political and procedural, relying both on the committee's voting results and the negative position taken by the Ministry of Justice.