Session Profile: Varro Vooglaid
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session.
2024-05-08
Political Position
The political focus is directed toward higher taxation of banks to prevent the siphoning off of "wild profits," and toward adherence to the rules of procedure of the Riigikogu. The speaker adopts a strongly oppositional stance, accusing the governing parties of seeking personal gain and arbitrarily violating parliamentary procedure. This position is deeply value-based, emphasizing justice and opposition to the elite's exploitation of society.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates thorough knowledge of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act, particularly the provisions governing the combining of amendments, specifically referencing Section 102, subsection 2. He/She utilizes this knowledge to present specific and legally substantiated objections to the conduct of the sitting. Furthermore, he/she is well-informed regarding the taxation of banks and the magnitude of the profits generated.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and accusatory, utilizing strong expressions such as "irrational," "arbitrariness," and "being seized." The speaker combines logical argumentation (referencing legal statutes) with emotional accusations concerning the government's motives (personal gain). Simplifying logical examples (like the Kohtla-Järve bus example) are also employed to illustrate procedural absurdity.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The mode of operation is intensive and focuses on the submission of procedural questions and the demanding of answers during the Riigikogu plenary session. The speaker demonstrates persistence, repeating their questions to the presiding officer of the session if they have remained unanswered or have been addressed with substantively irrelevant information.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition's stance is directed at the ruling parties and those responsible for procedural decisions (e.g., Mr. Odinets). The criticism is both political (regarding the taxation of banks) and strongly procedural (a violation of the rules of procedure when bundling amendments). The accusations are intense, pointing to personal gain and the "blunt steamrolling" of the opposition's objections.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
A collaborative style is evident within the opposition group itself, referencing the amendments proposed by colleagues (Siim Pohlak, Arvo Aller, Martin Helme, Varro Vooglaid), which they improperly attempted to bundle together. There is absolutely no indication of openness to compromise with the ruling coalition; communication is purely confrontational and insists on procedural correctness.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
There is no regional focus. Kohtla-Järve is mentioned only as a rhetorical example to explain a logical contradiction, not as a political priority.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic arguments emphasize the necessity of taxing banks more heavily to prevent the siphoning off of profits amounting to "hundreds of millions of euros" and to ensure fair taxation. The speaker links this low level of taxation to the personal financial gain of government politicians through their bank stock holdings.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Not enough data
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is directed in two ways: supporting the draft bill concerning the higher taxation of banks, and strongly opposing the violation of the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure when amendments are bundled together. The speaker acts as a defender of procedural order and demands the precise following of the law.
4 Speeches Analyzed