Agenda Profile: Varro Vooglaid

The political position is strongly value-based, emphasizing adherence to the principle of the rule of law and constitutional guarantees, particularly concerning the privilege against self-incrimination. The speaker criticizes the current version of the draft bill due to the lack of clarity regarding procedural safeguards for legal entities, although he acknowledges the Government's decision to abandon the original plan, which would have seriously infringed upon the constitution. Furthermore, he sharply criticizes the Government's procedural incompetence, given that the required constitutional analysis is absent from the draft bill's explanatory memorandum.

The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in constitutional law, criminal and misdemeanor procedure, and EU competition law. They accurately quote statutory provisions of the Constitution (Section 22, Subsection 3), the Code of Criminal Procedure, and reference Article 8 of the ECN+ Directive, focusing specifically on procedural guarantees. Furthermore, they are familiar with the technical rules governing legislative drafting ("Rules of Good Legislative Drafting and Normative Technique").

The style is formal, analytical, and critical, focusing on logical and legal arguments, using the case involving speeding and dashcams as an example. The tone is assertive and at times confrontational, particularly when criticizing the Government and the Social Democrats. The speaker repeatedly uses rhetorical questions to emphasize the bill's shortcomings and the uncertainty surrounding the Government's actions.

The speaker was very active and persistent during the first reading of the draft Competition Act, repeatedly raising questions regarding both substantive and procedural deficiencies. He/She delivered a lengthy concluding address, where he/she reiterated and expanded his/her criticism concerning the constitutionality of the draft bill and the shortcomings of the explanatory memorandum.

Strong opposition is directed at the Social Democrats ("Sotsid"), who are accused of programmatic hostility towards democracy and the principle of the rule of law, citing as an example their desire to criminalize hate speech. The government is sharply criticized for procedural deficiencies, as they failed to present the required constitutional analysis in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the draft bill.

The collaborative approach is aimed at raising the internal procedural standard of the Riigikogu and ensuring adherence to the Constitution. The speaker proposes that the Riigikogu Board and the heads of the committees should refuse to proceed with Government bills if the required analysis of constitutionality is missing.

None. The focus is on national lawmaking (the Constitution, codes of criminal procedure) and the transposition of European Union law (the ECN+ Directive).

Economic perspectives focus on the need for regulating competition law and the effective handling of violations. However, it is emphasized that efficiency must not undermine the principle of the rule of law and procedural guarantees, particularly regarding the privilege against self-incrimination for legal persons.

Regarding social issues, strong emphasis is placed on the protection of civil liberties and privacy, citing the problem of the nationwide camera network that records vehicle license plates as an example. They also oppose the criminalization of hate speech, viewing it as contrary to the principle of the rule of law.

The primary legislative focus is the draft amendment to the Competition Act (Bill 609 SE), of which the speaker is a critical opponent. He/She insists that the bill must comply with the Constitution and criticizes the Government for failing to include a constitutional analysis in the explanatory memorandum, a requirement under good legislative practice.