By Plenary Sessions: Timo Suslov

There is too little data.

There is no confrontation; the speaker does not criticize any group or opposing side. The procedure was largely consensus-based, as no proposals were received by the deadline for amendments, neither from members of the Riigikogu nor from interest groups.

There is not enough data.

There are no direct attacks or criticism aimed at opponents; the speaker focuses on describing the consensus and the procedure. They mention a colleague's question (Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart), but treat it as a substantive part of the discussion, rather than opposition.

The opposition is aimed at the initiators of the bill, who want to impose a financial penalty for ministers failing to attend committee meetings. The criticism is both procedural and ideological, raising questions about whether such a coercive measure is proportional and necessary, especially considering existing remedies, such as the option of calling a vote of no confidence.

The opposition is directed at the proposal put forward by the initiator of the draft legislation (Helir-Valdor Seeder), a proposal which the Government of the Republic does not support. The criticism is based on political and legal grounds, focusing specifically on the issue of the disproportionality of the restriction and the existing criteria used for considering the granting of citizenship. The committee proposed rejecting the bill, with the vote resulting in 6 in favor and 3 against.

The opposition is directed at the initiators of the draft bill, represented by Ants Frosh, and is justified by both substantive arguments (the burdening of local governments) and procedural arguments (the previous rejection of the same bill). The criticism targets the content of the draft bill, emphasizing that it will create unforeseen problems for municipalities.

The opposition is aimed at the initiated draft bill, whose initiator's representative was Ants Frosch (EKRE). The criticism is both political and substantive, as the Ministry of Justice and the majority of the committee did not support the bill's content, which led to a strong proposal for its rejection.