Agenda Profile: Peeter Ernits
Continuation of the second reading of the draft law amending the Competition Act and, in connection therewith, amending other laws (609 SE)
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
Political Position
The political stance strongly advocates for the swift adoption of the draft amendment to the Competition Act, aiming to halt the squandering of taxpayer funds on fines. This position is results-oriented, emphasizing fiscal responsibility and criticizing the previous lust for power displayed by officials, which led to the bill's embarrassing predicament. The handling of this draft bill is considered a historically and symbolically poor example of lawmaking.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates detailed knowledge regarding the history of the bill’s proceedings (seven governments) and its financial repercussions, providing the exact fine amounts (€400,000 initial fine, €3,000 per day, totaling €820,000). He also references Section 22 of the Constitution, which served as the primary stumbling block for the draft legislation. Although he does not claim to be a specialist in competition law, he utilizes factual data to support his arguments.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is passionate, sharply critical, and occasionally ironic, utilizing memorable and folksy expressions like "even a fool gets beaten in church" and "burning money with a big flame." The appeal is directed at both emotions (focusing on wastefulness during an austerity regime) and logic, supported by specific financial calculations. The tone is accusatory toward officials and the opposition party, but appreciative of the minister.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker was highly active during the debate on the draft Competition Act on June 11, 2025. They made several interjections and delivered a longer speech, indicating intensive involvement in the swift completion of this particular bill.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponent is the Social Democratic Party (SDE), which is accused of having a lust for punishment and burning taxpayer money, as they attempt to delay the processing of the bill. The criticism is intense and focuses on procedural irresponsibility, which increases the state's expenditure on fines. Earlier officials are also criticized, whose hunger for power caused the original problem.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The style of cooperation is pragmatic: the Minister of Justice is praised (under Pakosta’s leadership) for the complex handling of the draft bill, which is called an impressive achievement. At the same time, emphasis is placed on the need for a genuine and passionate parliamentary debate—one that pursues the truth, rather than letting officials walk all over them.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Insufficient data.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic views are strongly fiscally conservative, emphasizing the need to use every cent wisely during the austerity regime and avoid squandering taxpayer money on fines. The goal is to halt the daily financial expenditure that is a direct consequence of delaying the bill.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Social issues are addressed indirectly, by pointing to financial waste that could otherwise cover things like nursery school clubs, thereby emphasizing the value of taxpayer money within the context of social services. The Social Democrats are accused of pretending to stand up for their voters while simultaneously squandering funds.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on the swift finalization of the draft amendment to the Competition Act (609 SE), a measure which the speaker strongly supports. The objective is to avoid further fines and use this case as a lesson, emphasizing the importance of taking the Constitution (particularly Section 22) into account during the legislative process.
6 Speeches Analyzed