By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

The criticism is aimed directly at the coalition and the Prime Minister, accusing them of making poor decisions and worsening the economy. He/She criticizes the ministers for short-sightedness and for misleading the public regarding social definitions. The criticism is sharp and policy-based, claiming that the opposing side is unwilling to learn from the mistakes of Germany and Europe.

The primary confrontation is directed at the minister and the ministry, criticizing the lack of transparency and the dishonest presentation of their draft legislation. The criticism is intense, accusing the minister of concealing significant changes and negatively branding tax-compliant entrepreneurs. The opposition is also extended to the chair of the session, who, in the speaker's assessment, failed to maintain order.

The main opposition is directed at officials within the Ministry of Climate (who are accused of inconsistencies) and coalition members of parliament, who are being criticized for the ineffectiveness of their policies and their lack of expertise. The criticism is particularly sharp towards colleague Kadastik, who stands accused of actively undermining the development of nuclear energy. The critique is both policy-based and personal, and there is a complete absence of willingness to compromise.

The primary opponents are the Social Democrats (SDE), Minister Läänemets, Minister Riisalo, and the Minister of Finance. The criticism is intense, centering on political hypocrisy, the implementation of regressive taxes, and the misleading of the public regarding taxation. The opponents are further accused of inciting class antagonism and branding those who raise questions as "state traitors."

The criticism is aimed at the Minister (or the government) and addresses the specific procurement policy for national defense. The opposition is policy-based, focusing on the policy's illogical nature and its failure to guarantee industrial readiness.

The primary target is the Prime Minister and the government, who face criticism for misleading the public and for illegal actions during the confiscation of the monument. The criticism is intense, focusing specifically on procedural and legal shortcomings, particularly the misinterpretation of the law and the establishment of a dangerous precedent.

The opposition is directed at the government and the ministries, criticizing primarily administrative capacity and financial realism. The criticism is especially strong regarding the imposition of restrictions on private owners without compensation, and the growth of the bureaucratic apparatus in the education sector. The previous minister (Michal) and his path of building communism are also criticized.