Session Profile: Kalle Grünthal
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary sitting
2024-04-02
Political Position
The political focus is on procedural correctness and ensuring legality within the work of the Riigikogu (Parliament), stressing that committee decisions must not contravene existing law. The speaker is strongly opposed to the committee's decision requiring a majority vote of the full Riigikogu membership to adopt the proposal to withdraw the motor vehicle tax bill. This position is firmly grounded in legal norms and the opinion provided by the Riigikogu Legal and Analysis Department. This implicitly supports abandoning the implementation of the car tax.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates strong expertise in the procedural law of the Riigikogu and constitutional law, focusing specifically on voting procedures. This expertise is confirmed by specific references to the position of the Riigikogu Legal and Analysis Department and to Article 104 of the Constitution, which lists the laws requiring a majority of the full composition. The competence is directed toward ensuring legality during the processing of draft legislation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and highly logical, focusing on legal argumentation and rules of procedure. The speaker uses direct questions directed at the presiding officer ("Can we break the law?") and appeals to the chair's legal background to garner support for their position. The tone is demanding, emphasizing the necessity of avoiding illegality.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The pattern indicates active participation in plenary sessions, especially concerning procedural disputes and the debate of draft legislation. The speaker intervened in the discussion, which had started the previous day, demonstrating a readiness to immediately respond to procedural issues.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition is aimed at the decision made by the Riigikogu committee, which demands an absolute majority vote (a majority of the full membership) for the adoption of the bill, and at those defending this stance (Lauri Hussar was named). The criticism is intense and focuses purely on procedural irregularity, accusing the opposing party of acting in contravention of the law.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The collaborative approach is aimed at securing institutional support and achieving legal consensus with the presiding officer of the session, specifically by requesting their position on the matter of a potential legal violation. The speaker seeks confirmation of their own legal interpretation, emphasizing their reliance on the chairman's judicial competence.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
There is not enough data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The economic views indirectly touch upon tax policy, as the speaker supports the proposal to scrap the introduction of the motor vehicle tax. Specific stances on taxation, spending, or economic growth are not directly evident in the speeches.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Insufficient data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is the proposal to abandon the implementation of the car tax and withdraw the motor vehicle tax bill. The speaker is primarily an advocate for procedural correctness, demanding that the bill's procedure adhere to the position of the Riigikogu Legal and Analysis Department, rather than the committee's decision.
2 Speeches Analyzed