Agenda Profile: Jaanus Karilaid
First Reading of the Draft Act on the Amendment of the Competition Act and the Amendment of Other Associated Acts (384 SE)
2024-04-10
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
Political Position
The political stance is strongly opposed to Draft Bill 384 SE (Amendments to the Competition Act), as it is poorly prepared and lacks practical examples demonstrating its necessity. Criticism targets both procedural flaws (lack of stakeholder involvement) and content that causes economic apprehension. The faction (Isamaa) proposes rejecting the bill during the first reading and rewriting it. The position is strongly policy- and results-driven, highlighting the absence of economic stimulus.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in legislative procedures and the enforcement of competition law, focusing specifically on differentiating between fair and unfair competition. Emphasis is placed on the necessity of an impact assessment, raising questions regarding the provision of resources and capacity for the Competition Authority and the administrative court. Furthermore, awareness of the obligation to transpose directives and the ability to maintain dialogue with the European Commission are crucial.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is critical, demanding, and analytical, requiring specific practical examples and a clear explanation of problem-solving ("we need to spell it out/make it crystal clear"). Sharp expressions are used to describe the legislative process ("a strange stage of shaping legislation"). It primarily appeals to logic and the criticism of experts (legal scholars, the administrative court).
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The pattern of activity indicates active and focused participation in the Riigikogu session during the first reading of a specific draft bill. The speaker raises repeated questions regarding substantive deficiencies and procedural errors, culminating in the faction's official opposition.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition is directed at the government, the Minister of Justice, and the commission's representative, all of whom are being criticized for a lack of engagement and the unreasonableness of the draft bill. The criticism is strongly procedural and policy-based, highlighting that key experts (University of Tartu legal scholars, the bar association, the Chancellor of Justice) oppose the proposed course of action. The compromise is rejected, and a motion is put forward to reject the draft bill entirely.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The collaborative approach is evident in how the Isamaa faction presented its position, suggesting a consensus within the faction itself. They are also seeking cooperation outside the Riigikogu, citing critical views shared by the Bar Association, legal scholars at the University of Tartu, the administrative court, and business owners, all aimed at strengthening their opposition.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on the national economic environment and maintaining its attractiveness, alongside issues related to the transposition of the European Union directive. There are no references to specific local or regional topics.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic views are strongly supportive of the business environment and wary of regulation. The draft bill is seen as rather intimidating and creating inconsistencies, which ultimately worsens the business climate. Emphasis is placed on the need for economic stimulus measures at a time when the Estonian economy is contracting for the second consecutive year.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Not enough data.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is currently on opposing the draft bill (384 SE) to amend the Competition Act. The speaker is a strong opponent who demands the rejection and rewriting of the bill, arguing that it fails to solve practical problems and creates inconsistencies. A key priority is high-quality lawmaking and the involvement of experts.
3 Speeches Analyzed