Agenda Profile: Rene Kokk
Second Reading of the Draft Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers Reporting Work-Related Infringements of European Union Law (257 SE)
2024-05-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session.
Political Position
The political position heavily focuses on strict adherence to the Riigikogu's rules of procedure and the lawful handling of amendments. The speaker vigorously opposes the bundling together of proposals from different submitters, deeming it improper and "an act of arrogance that crosses the line." The primary emphasis is on criticizing the government's steamroller tactics and demanding the citation of a specific legal norm. The position is strongly procedural and oppositional.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The expert assessment is limited to the Riigikogu's rules of procedure and the regulations governing the submission and linking of amendments. The speaker repeatedly demands the identification of the specific statutory provision or norm upon which the procedural decision was based. There is no substantive discussion regarding the content of the draft bill (Whistleblower Protection Act), focusing solely on procedural violations.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and repetitive, emphasizing the opposing side's failure to provide answers. Strong emotional expressions are used, such as "crossing the line with arrogance" and "brutally steamrolled here." The speaker aggressively repeats their core question (naming the norm) multiple times, noting that it has been asked at least seven times.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is an active participant in the ongoing Riigikogu debate, noting that they had listened to the discussion for several hours before taking the floor. This pattern of activity indicates sustained attendance and intervention whenever procedural issues emerge.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main confrontation is aimed at the bill's rapporteur and the Vice-Chairman of the Riigikogu (Eduard), who stand accused of violating procedural rules and exhibiting authoritarian behavior. The criticism is intense and centers on procedural injustice, with the opposing side being accused of arrogance and disregarding established previous practice. The speaker is demanding the withdrawal of the procedure, ruling out any compromise until the error is formally acknowledged.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
A cooperative style is evident within the opposition groups, referencing similar questions raised by other opposition members (Rain Epler, Varro Vooglaid). The speaker also defends the submitters of amendments from various factions (Rene Kokk, Leo Kunnas, Alar Laneman, Evelin Poolamets, Isamaa), emphasizing their shared opposition to procedural injustice.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Not enough data
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Not enough data
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on the procedural side of the Draft Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers Regarding Violations of European Union Law in the Workplace (257 SE). The speaker is a procedural adversary, demanding the withdrawal of the consolidation of amendments and their subsequent re-processing. The priority is adherence to procedural norms, not the substantive support for or opposition to the draft act.
3 Speeches Analyzed