Agenda Profile: Kalle Grünthal
Second reading of the draft law amending the Alcohol, Tobacco, Fuel and Electricity Excise Tax Act and other laws (510 SE)
2024-12-04
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
Political Position
The speaker takes a strongly opposing stance regarding the draft bill to raise excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, fuel, and electricity, claiming that it fleeces the Estonian people yet again. The political framework is strongly value-driven and results-oriented, emphasizing that the collected money will not go towards the welfare of the Estonian people, but rather towards fulfilling the long-term support agreement for Ukraine (100 million euros annually). The speaker views the excise tax hikes as an expression of the exploitation of the people and an act of state crime.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates knowledge regarding the combined effect of excise policy and the state budget's international obligations. He refers to a specific security cooperation agreement (Kallas and Zelenskyy, June 27 in Brussels) and precise figures (€100 million over ten years). While technical economic data are missing, the speaker emphasizes the Finance Committee's inability to discuss the combined impact of these decisions.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is extremely aggressive, accusatory, and emotional, employing powerful metaphors and historical analogies. The speaker refers to the government as a "state criminal mafia" and compares their actions to the Perm mafia of the 90s, who extorted entrepreneurs. The appeal is directed straight at the people, urging them to kick the government out of Stenbock House.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is actively participating in the Riigikogu session, posing questions and delivering speeches during the second reading of the draft Excise Duty Act. He references prior events (the signing of the agreement in Brussels) and responds to interruptions taking place in the chamber (Aivar Kokk).
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the governing coalition (the Reform Party, Estonia 200, and the Social Democrats) and Prime Minister Kaja Kallas. The criticism is extremely intense and personal, labeling the government a "criminal mafia" that is taking the very last thing people have. There is no willingness to compromise; instead, they are demanding the government's resignation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker shows no willingness to cooperate with the government, choosing instead to fully oppose them. While he references the stance of his opposition colleague (Aivar Kokk) against the excise tax hike, he simultaneously criticizes him for naivety, suggesting that the government does not understand "beautiful language."
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is heavily on national tax policy and its overall impact on "the Estonian people." A significant international emphasis is placed on the agreement for long-term support for Ukraine and how it will be financed through increases in excise duties. There is no specific local or regional focus.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The speaker is vehemently opposed to tax increases, particularly excise duties, arguing that they drain the public and businesses. The government's activities are described as milking the cash cow dry, signaling opposition to excessive state tax burdens and the exhaustion of the economy.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Social issues are not directly addressed, but emphasis is placed on the economic exploitation of the populace and the decline in their well-being due to excise tax hikes. The speaker employs a social framework to portray the government's actions as criminal activity directed against the people.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The main legislative focus is opposing the draft Act amending the Alcohol, Tobacco, Fuel, and Electricity Excise Duty Act and other acts (Bill 510 SE). The speaker is a staunch opponent of the bill and criticizes the procedural deficiencies of the Finance Committee (namely, the failure to discuss the cumulative impact).
2 Speeches Analyzed