Agenda Profile: Jüri Jaanson

The political focus is currently on clarifying the details of the draft bill, particularly regarding the security risks associated with sporting events and the definition of traffic reorganization. The prevailing stance is strongly directed towards achieving legal clarity, specifically questioning whether the regulation encompasses both land-based and water-based sports. A second, equally strong point of view concerns the procedural order for chairing the Riigikogu session and the fairness of the system for submitting questions, which is deemed unjust if the repetition of a question is counted as a new, separate question.

The speaker demonstrates detailed expertise regarding the text of the draft bill, citing specific sections and subsections (e.g., amendments to Section 20). The expertise focuses on legal interpretation, particularly the application of the term "traffic reorganization" in the context of various sports (sailing, rowing). The speaker demands technical precision concerning the conditions for obtaining a permit from the municipal or city government.

The language used is formal and analytical, focusing on logical argumentation and the precise clarification of legal definitions. The style is direct and assertive, particularly when the presenter is asked to repeat a question or when the system employed by the session chair for counting questions is challenged. Emotional appeals are avoided; the emphasis is placed solely on procedural and substantive correctness.

The pattern of behavior is confined to intensive participation during a single session day at the second reading of a bill, characterized by the submission of repetitive clarifying questions and procedural remarks. The speaker intervenes multiple times to ensure their question is fully understood and adequately addressed, and subsequently challenges the propriety of the session's chairing.

There is no direct opposition to the substance of the draft legislation itself, but criticism is aimed at the presenter's vague answer and the procedure for counting parliamentary questions used by the session chair. The criticism is procedural, stressing that the system incorrectly registers the repetition of a question as a second, separate question.

The style of cooperation is demanding and focuses on achieving clarity with the presenter, repeatedly asking for clarification regarding the provisions of the draft law. He/She begins politely ("Thank you very much, esteemed Chair of the session! Good presenter, thank you for the report!"), but becomes demanding when he/she feels that his/her right to ask questions is being restricted.

Not enough data

Not enough data

Not enough data

The primary legislative focus is the draft Act amending the Sports Act (Bill 518 SE), which emphasizes the need to clarify the definition of sports events posing an increased security risk. Another important activity is ensuring the proper adherence to the Riigikogu (Parliament) Rules of Procedure and the system for submitting questions, in an effort to improve the internal organization of parliamentary work.