By Agendas: Tarmo Tamm

Insufficient data.

He/She opposes the opposition, which claims the bill is detrimental and unfair to businesses. The criticism is politically motivated, as the speaker asserts that these claims "are fortunately not true." The disagreement is focused on refuting the claims rather than being a personal attack.

Insufficient data.

The primary opposition is aimed at Andres Metsoja's amendment proposal, the rejection of which is justified by citing a conflict with EU law and the potential for placing Estonian businesses at a disadvantage. [The subject] criticizes Urmas Reinsalu's assertions regarding letters allegedly sent to the commission, labeling them misleading and clarifying that the letters had previously been sent to the Government of the Republic.

The speaker conveyed the stance of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Tallink, who considered the draft bill unconstitutional due to its adverse retroactive impact. However, the speaker also presented the ministry's reply, which dismissed this criticism, confirming that there were no constitutional issues.

The criticism is aimed at the state's inaction and the resulting loss of trust among rural residents, especially in a situation where the state "throws up its hands" and fails to provide aid. Furthermore, criticism is leveled against the Ministry of the Interior's disproportionate punitive practices when revoking gun licenses, as well as the challengers of the wolf hunt, who have generated fear of wolves and caused reputational damage.

There is no opposition, and no criticism is being raised. The focus is on confirming the party's position and verifying the consensus.

No views of the opposition are expressed, nor is any specific opposing party criticized. The entire focus is directed toward explaining the content of the commission’s consensus decision and the substance of the draft bill.

No direct opponents were named, but the speaker presented indirect criticism concerning the lack of political balance, which has led to economic stagnation despite environmental progress. The criticism is directed at the imbalance of policy, not at specific individuals.

None. The discussion focuses on finding a consensual solution and the sensibility of the draft bill, emphasizing that the resulting situation must be resolved.

Opponents or the targets of criticism are not named directly. The indirect criticism is aimed at the outdated 30-day response deadline and the general bureaucracy that impedes swift processing of affairs.

Not enough data

The main criticism is directed against the Center Party's proposal, which is being labeled as populist and detrimental to the economy. The criticism is policy-based, focusing on the draft bill's negative impact on the business environment and the creation of uncertainty. The speaker accuses the banks of excessive greed regarding interest rates for depositors, but offers market-based solutions for this issue.

There is a complete lack of opposition. The speaker emphasizes that not a single amendment proposal or opinion regarding the draft bill was received from members of the Riigikogu, committees, or factions.

Direct opponents are not being criticized; instead, the criticism is aimed at systemic issues such as excessive bureaucracy and low productivity. The speaker demands that politicians and officials change their decision-making processes so that they support sustainable economic growth.

There is absolutely no opposition; the speaker emphasizes that no further questions or discussion arose in the committee. This suggests that the bill encountered no opposition or criticism.