Session Profile: Jaanus Karilaid
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Third Session, Plenary Session.
2024-04-30
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to the government’s fiscal policy, particularly the increase in fine units and state fees, which is viewed as merely patching up the budget deficit. This standpoint is vigorously results-oriented, sharply criticizing the quality of legislative drafting and the absence of proper impact assessments. Representing the Isamaa parliamentary group, a motion is proposed to reject both the bill amending the Penal Code (SE 415) and the bill amending the State Fees Act (SE 417).
5 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
Demonstrates profound expertise in legislative procedures, focusing on the requirements for impact assessment (impact analysis) and instances of non-compliance. Detailed guidelines and control questionnaires (nearly 30 pages) from the Government Office and the Ministry of Justice are cited. Furthermore, they are familiar with the numerical data in specific budget forecasts and explanatory memoranda (e.g., 10 million vs 8.4 million).
5 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, highlighting the government's lack of vision and poor work culture. Although logical and evidence-based arguments are presented (referencing explanatory notes and guidelines), the tone is emotionally charged, especially concerning economic uncertainty. Figurative language is employed, accusing the government of dishonesty and the state's long arm reaching into people's pockets.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The discussions were consolidated into a single day of the plenary session (30.04.2024), where the speaker actively participated in the debate on two draft bills (SE 415 and SE 417), posing questions and submitting motions for rejection on behalf of the parliamentary group. The speaker referenced previous actions, reading aloud a statement made by Andrus Ansip, who has nine years of experience as Prime Minister.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the Reform Party (whose smoothing of the tax hump created the budget deficit) and the Social Democrats (who are accused of enabling the Reform Party's activities). The criticism is intense, focusing both on political bad faith (the actual goal being to replenish the state coffers) and procedural deficiencies (the absence of an impact analysis). The Ministry of Justice is accused of having an arrogant attitude towards the quality of legislation.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
There is no sign of willingness to cooperate with the government; the activity is purely oppositional, aimed at rejecting the proposed legislation. The only positive comment was directed at Minister of the Interior Läänemets, whose bill was considered "more robust" compared to the previous one. However, this does not indicate cooperation, but rather rhetorical antagonism.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is entirely national, addressing nationwide legal amendments (fine units, state fees) and the general state of the Estonian economy, particularly the decline in people's purchasing power. Regional or local topics are not covered in the speeches.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic policy views are strongly focused on protecting citizens' purchasing power; they oppose the raising of fines and state fees, arguing that these measures put undue pressure on the economy. They demand economic stimulation, job creation, and wage increases, while accusing the government of using dishonest methods to cover budget deficits. The current fiscal policy is viewed as lacking vision and merely serving to fill the state coffers.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Social issues are addressed purely from a financial perspective, noting that the increase in state fees makes both getting married and getting divorced more expensive. There is no moral or value-based discussion regarding traffic behavior or marriage; the focus is entirely on the financial burden.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on the rejection of two government bills (SE 415 and SE 417) concerning the increase of fine units and state fees. There is a strong emphasis on the necessity of adhering to legislative quality requirements, particularly the execution of impact assessments, while accusing the Ministry of Justice of failing to comply with statutory obligations.
5 Speeches Analyzed