By Plenary Sessions: Tarmo Tamm

Insufficient data set

The criticism is directed against the opposition, who claim that the bill is harmful and unfair to businesses. The speaker directly refutes these claims, noting that they "are thankfully not true." The critique is policy- and fact-based, focusing on assessing the regulation's actual impact.

Insufficient data.

The objection is directed at Andres Metsoja’s amendment proposal, which was rejected due to legal incompatibility with EU law and which would place Estonian entrepreneurs at a disadvantage. The speaker criticizes Urmas Reinsalu for presenting inaccurate claims regarding the letters received by the Commission, accusing him of "mixing some things up" and misleading [others].

Direct political opposition is not expressed, but the stance of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Tallink regarding the unconstitutionality of the draft bill—due to its retroactive adverse effect—is mentioned. The speaker neutrally presents the ministry's counter-argument to this criticism, confirming that there are no issues with constitutionality.

Criticism is aimed at the state's inaction regarding damage caused by wildlife ("the state just shrugs") and the disproportionate practice of revoking firearms licenses under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior, which is seen as an overextension of discretionary power. Also criticized are those who challenge wolf hunting, who have damaged the reputation of the national animal and instilled fear of wolves among the populace.

Insufficient data

Insufficient data.

There is no direct opposition; the criticism is aimed instead at the potential undesirable consequences of the policy, specifically where environmental protection is economically disproportionate. High environmental standards are being contrasted with low economic performance.

There is not enough data.

There is no outright conflict; criticism is aimed at outdated bureaucratic processes and the 30-day response time, which is a relic of the paper-based era. The underlying assumption that simply having more bureaucrats will solve problems faster is also indirectly criticized.

There is no direct opposition or intense criticism aimed at the government; instead, questions are being raised about the details and feasibility of the policy. The opposition is low-intensity and focuses on improving the substance of the policy.

The primary criticism is aimed at the Centre Party's proposal to introduce a bank tax, which is being branded as populist and detrimental to the Estonian economy. The criticism is intense, focusing on the incompetence of the political decisions and the economic damage that retroactive taxation would inflict. The opposition is principled, and any compromise regarding the bank tax is ruled out.

No opposition is expressed, nor is any group criticized. Instead, it is emphasized that no amendments or opinions regarding the draft bill were received from members of the Riigikogu, committees, or parliamentary groups.

No direct political opponent is criticized, but the stance is critical regarding the current passive economic policy and excessive bureaucracy. The criticism targets a system that fails to adequately support entrepreneurship and innovation. It is stressed that the state cannot simply wait for tourists to arrive; it must actively create the necessary prerequisites.

There is a complete absence of opposition; the speaker, conversely, highlights the consensus approval and the lack of supplementary questions within the committee, indicating a smooth process free of objections.