Agenda Profile: Varro Vooglaid

The political position is strongly oriented toward the defense of constitutional rights, standing in opposition to the amendments to the anti-money laundering act that the President of the Republic declined to promulgate. The speaker frames the adoption of the law as a move toward a totalitarian state order, emphasizing the need to protect citizens' rights and freedoms from state surveillance. This stance is value-based, demanding personal accountability from members of parliament and a thorough examination of constitutional issues. In their assessment, the draft bill should be thrown out entirely, rather than merely correcting the specific contradiction highlighted by the President.

The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in constitutional law (specifically Section 44 and the restriction of rights) and the principles of the rule of law. He/She meticulously analyzes the ambiguity surrounding the powers of the Financial Intelligence Unit (RAB) and the resulting impact on citizens' right to access data. Furthermore, the speaker exhibits knowledge of mass surveillance technologies, such as AI-driven profiling and database aggregation.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, confrontational, and forceful, employing strong value judgments (e.g., "totalitarian," "total surveillance," "lying to the public"). The speaker relies on logical arguments concerning constitutionality but emotionally stresses that this is an unacceptable situation in a state governed by the rule of law. He repeatedly uses rhetorical questions and refers to previous warnings issued by other members of parliament to underscore the deliberate violation of the constitution.

All speeches were delivered during a single session day as part of the re-debate of the law, indicating active participation in addressing significant legislative setbacks. The speaker references previous events (the June 19 vote) and recent remarks made by other members of parliament (Maris Lauri), demonstrating close attention to the debates taking place in the chamber.

The confrontation is directed against the leaders of the Riigikogu majority, the Finance Committee, and the Constitutional Committee, who are criticized for lacking basic competence and ignoring warnings. The criticism is intense, primarily procedural and ideological, accusing the opponents of deliberately violating the constitution and supporting totalitarian initiatives. He/She rejects Maris Lauri's stance that the adoption of unconstitutional laws constitutes "normal" democratic practice.

The speaker refers to previous collaboration and the sharing of warnings with colleagues (Urmas Reinsalu, Anastassia, Rain) during the legislative process, emphasizing that the problem was repeatedly highlighted. The tone in the current discussion is confrontational, demanding accountability and introspection, rather than openness to compromise with the majority.

Not enough data

The economic views expressed are tied to concerns about the total profiling of entrepreneurs using artificial intelligence. This indicates opposition to state intervention and surveillance, which is seen as detrimental to economic freedom. He criticizes the creation of profiles for companies that have committed no unlawful acts, fearing the resulting consequences, such as account closures.

In social matters, the focus is on protecting citizens' constitutional rights and freedoms and opposing total surveillance. The speaker sharply criticizes initiatives that expand the state's ability to profile individuals and punish them for activities that are not unlawful (e.g., "reading the wrong things" or "listening to the wrong broadcasts"), connecting this to a network of secret license plate recognition cameras.

The legislative focus is on opposing the Act Amending the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act (640 UA), with the individual acting as a strong opponent. They demand the complete withdrawal of the draft bill and criticize Parliament's inability to ensure the constitutional compliance of legislation. Additionally, they raise the question of the bill's initiator's right to withdraw the draft after the President's non-promulgation.