By Plenary Sessions: Kristo Enn Vaga

No opposition is voiced, and no group is criticized. Instead, emphasis is placed on the strong agreement in the chamber and the consensus decisions made by the committee, suggesting that the bills under discussion enjoy widespread support.

There is no direct opposition. The speaker raises questions that call into question certain economic policy directions (the income tax increase), but frames them as requests for a neutral assessment, rather than as an attack.

There is no direct confrontation or criticism aimed at opponents. The first address raises the question of whether associations linked to the Moscow Patriarchate are suitable for inclusion in the income tax exemption register. While this suggests a potential challenge to the status of these organizations, the matter is presented as a legal inquiry.

The confrontation is aimed at opposition politicians (Martin Helme, Urmas, Raimond) and the previous EKREIKE government, criticizing their politically driven procurements which failed to follow the advice of the Defence Forces. The speaker vigorously refutes the opposition's claims regarding the misappropriation of funds based on the State Audit Office report, emphasizing that the problems lay in the paperwork, not in a financial shortfall.