By Plenary Sessions: Urve Tiidus

Direct political confrontation is not expressed; the criticism is directed at procedural shortcomings, especially the subpar quality of the analysis concerning the constitutionality of draft laws. The intensity of the criticism is moderate, emphasizing that there is always room for improvement and referencing the appeal by experts (Jõks and Ginter) to take the constitution seriously.

The criticism targets deficiencies in policies and procedures, specifically querying the prime minister regarding the absence of detailed information in the provided materials. Furthermore, the standards for vaccine testing are being scrutinized, though there is no direct personal or procedural attack. The criticism is primarily framed as questions requiring clarification.

Insufficient data. The discussions do not include criticism or opposition, but are focused on gathering information and seeking solutions.

There is not enough data.

The criticism is aimed at the inadequacy of the foundation for preparing the draft bill and the risk analysis, demanding statistical justification. Direct confrontation with political groups is not expressed; instead, the focus remains on the deficiencies in the content of the legislation.

There is no direct confrontation, but the speaker indirectly casts doubt on the previous positions of those who voiced serious fears and risk warnings during the processing of the ESM, since those predictions have not come true. The criticism is directed at policy forecasts, not at individuals.

Lack of data