Agenda Profile: Martin Helme
Interpellation regarding the necessity and construction of Rail Baltic (No. 262)
2024-01-15
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
Political Position
The political position is one of extremely strong opposition to the Rail Baltic project, which is viewed as an economically unviable expense based on falsified analysis. This stance is framed around the principles of fiscal responsibility and the wasteful expenditure of state funds, contrasting the multi-billion-euro cost of RB with the lack of funding available for teachers' salary increases. The speaker stresses that this is a net cost that threatens to bankrupt the Estonian state.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise regarding the financial analysis of Rail Baltic, pointing to a falsified feasibility study, the manipulation of the discount rate, and the doubling of costs. He clearly differentiates between an investment and an expense, and he brings up specific maintenance cost figures (40–50 million euros annually). Furthermore, he stresses that European Union funds are, in reality, the money of Estonian taxpayers.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker's rhetorical style is extremely combative, cynical, and blunt, featuring strong accusations of lying and outright nonsense ("Kurat küll!"). The speech employs both logical financial arguments and emotional appeals, leaning on quotes (Kaja Kallas quotes Kaja Kallas) and ironic comparisons (for example, that the answers were written by ChatGPT). He characterizes their attitude toward EU funds as that of Caribbean pirates: take everything you can get your hands on and give nothing back.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is participating in the debate regarding Riigikogu interpellation (No. 262), which was submitted already in the spring, and emphasizes that this is a substantive topic, not an obstructionist one. He notes that he has been among the project's critics since the very beginning, citing long-term activity against the issue.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the Reform Party, coalition politicians, and Kaja Kallas, who is accused of lying, receiving state contracts, and defaming the parliamentary inquiry as mere obstruction. The criticism is intense and includes personal accusations, specifically pointing to the Reform Party members' vested interest in state contracts. A compromise regarding the RB project is ruled out, as it is viewed as a complete loss.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Insufficient data.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on the national level (the threat of bankrupting the Estonian state) and international hubs (Riga, Berlin). Among specific Estonian locations, mention is made of the bogs of Pärnu County in connection with the construction of the route, and Valga railway station as an example of a structure that has remained unused.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The speaker advocates strict fiscal discipline, opposing large expenditures on unprofitable projects and insisting that money that doesn't exist cannot be spent. He criticizes the government for the necessity of new taxes to finance the Rail Baltic project (RB), citing examples like raising the VAT to 25%. He emphasizes that Rail Baltic is an expense, not an investment, and criticizes the enrichment occurring through gravel transport and land swaps in Pärnu County.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
In the social sector, the priority of education funding is stressed, highlighting the threat of a teachers' strike and the urgent need to secure funds for wage hikes. This critical social requirement is then pitted against the costs of Rail Baltic to expose the skewed nature of the government's priorities.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The main legislative focus is Interpellation No. 262 regarding the necessity and construction of Rail Baltic, which the speaker both initiated and supports. He/She is using the interpellation as a platform to expose alleged economic non-viability and corruption, pushing back against the coalition's attempts to label it as obstruction.
3 Speeches Analyzed