Agenda Profile: Züleyxa Izmailova
Second Reading of the Riigikogu Resolution "Supporting the Introduction of Nuclear Energy in Estonia" (431 OE)
2024-06-12
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session.
Political Position
The political focus is on strongly opposing Riigikogu decision 431 OE (supporting the adoption of nuclear energy). This opposition is framed by both procedural deficiencies (specifically, the quality of public engagement/consultation) and substantive arguments (the lack of a science-based necessity and economic unviability). This stance is heavily aimed at criticizing the fiscal responsibility and legislative quality of the government and parliament.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise regarding the procedural norms of the Riigikogu and the work of its committees, criticizing the restriction of the right to speak and shortcomings in engagement. In the substantive discussion, he/she relies on the positions of Estonian scientists and experts, emphasizing the economic non-viability and lack of necessity of the nuclear power plant. He/she also uses arguments concerning the fixed costs of the state budget and the coverage of basic needs.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is critical, direct, and focuses on ethics and procedural shortcomings. The speaker poses pointed questions regarding the quality of the committee's work and the impact of lobbying, demanding an honest admission of errors. He balances logical arguments (costs, scientific basis) with personal experience ("it has left a poor impression on the new member of the Riigikogu").
5 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active throughout the debate, repeatedly addressing both procedural questions to the Chair and ethical and substantive questions to the rapporteur. He/She participates intensely in the work of the Riigikogu plenary session, despite not being a member of the Environment Committee. His/Her pattern of activity encompasses both raising procedural points and offering substantive opposition.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary criticism is aimed at the leaders of the Environment Committee, who are accused of restricting the right to speak and engaging in unethical behavior. Supporters of the draft bill are also being criticized regarding the quality of the legislative process (misinformation, ignoring proposed amendments) and for making the decision as a result of lobbying by one specific company. The opposition is intense and encompasses both procedural and ethical concerns.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker refers to other colleagues who have also highlighted procedural errors, which indicates a shared critical stance regarding the process. Direct cooperation or a willingness to compromise with the proponents of the draft is not reflected in the text; rather, it suggests an antagonistic attitude toward the commission's leadership.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is strictly at the national level, addressing the impact of preparing for the construction of a nuclear power plant on the Estonian state as a whole. Emphasis is placed on the significant cost incurred by the state and the state's inability to cover basic needs. Specific regional projects or communities are not mentioned.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic viewpoints emphasize fiscal responsibility and austerity, contrasting this approach with the preparation of a nuclear power plant, which represents a major fixed cost for the state. The speaker believes that the government should prioritize meeting basic needs and avoid economically unviable projects at a time when officials are actively seeking areas for cost savings.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
In the social sector, concern is being highlighted that the state is unable to find sufficient resources to cover basic needs. This points to a problem with budget prioritization, where large expenditures on a major project are competing directly with social requirements.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is centered on opposing Riigikogu Decision 431 OE (nuclear energy) during its second reading. The speaker is a staunch opponent of the bill and is concentrating on improving the quality of the procedure, demanding the acknowledgment of errors and the repetition of the process. He criticizes the failure to consider proposed amendments and the dissemination of false information.
5 Speeches Analyzed