By Plenary Sessions: Jaak Valge

The criticism is aimed directly at the policy of the minister and his ministry, particularly regarding the preference for cheap labor and an unconvincing migration policy. The speaker challenges the minister's assertions and demands clarification as to why Estonia's conditions for granting protection differ from those of the other Baltic states. The attacks are policy-driven, accusing the government of declining productivity and disregarding the interests of the Ukrainian state.

The main opponent is the minister, whose political rationale (renting out the prison to create jobs) is sharply criticized. The criticism is policy-driven, focusing on the government's failed initiatives and illogical economic policy. The opposition is strong, referring to the government's action as an "incorrect move."

The main adversary is the ruling coalition and the prime minister, who are being sharply criticized for pursuing the wrong political direction (mass immigration, outdated economic logic) and for incompetence (specifically, the quality of their prepared responses). The criticism is intense and policy-driven, accusing the government of throwing in the towel and idly watching the situation unfold.

The criticism is aimed at the overall failure of economic management, which has resulted in a drop in productivity and competitiveness. Specific political opponents are not named, but accountability and an explanation are being demanded regarding "where we went wrong."

The main criticism is directed against the Political Parties Financing Surveillance Committee (ERJK), accusing it of making biased, unfair, and frankly ridiculous decisions. The intensity of the criticism is strong and focuses on the institution's inefficiency and blatant partiality.

The main confrontation is directed against the minister and the policies he has put forward, particularly concerning his enthusiastic support for Rail Baltic. The criticism is conceptual, challenging the minister's understanding of the nature of policy in the infrastructure sector and calling into question the project's legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

The main opponent is the Minister of Education, whose assessment of the situation regarding the Estonian language is considered to be in stark contradiction with actual trends. The criticism is intense and politically motivated, accusing the minister of ignoring the violation of agreements aimed at preserving the Estonian academic language, as well as citing deficiencies in migration policy. No possibility of compromise is being offered; instead, critics are demanding a change in policy and the acknowledgment of facts.