Agenda Profile: Andrei Korobeinik
Draft law amending the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia (536 SE) – first reading
2024-11-20
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
Political Position
The political position centers on a critical analysis of the draft constitutional amendment (536 SE), specifically examining its implications for national security and resident loyalty. The speaker casts doubt on whether the proposed change will actually improve the security situation and demands clarification regarding why certain citizens holding long-term residency permits (e.g., from Ukraine, Moldova) are being disenfranchised. The position is highly inquisitive, requiring a clear justification for the underlying considerations driving these political decisions.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in constitutional law and security policy, referencing the history of the adoption of the Estonian Constitution in the 1990s. They are well-versed in the details of the draft legislation, highlighting specific nationality groups (Ukraine, Moldova) and their residence permit status. This expertise is directed toward evaluating legislative considerations and potential security threats.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, focusing on posing concrete and pointed questions regarding security and the scope of the draft legislation. Should the respondent forget the substance of the question, the tone shifts to one of anxiety and procedural demandingness, expressing "deep concern" and addressing the presiding officer directly. The style is logical and requires the maintenance of order.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The pattern of behavior indicates active participation in the first reading of the draft Constitutional Amendment Act, submitting multiple consecutive questions and procedural remarks. The speaker repeatedly intervened in the debate to ensure their questions were answered and that proper procedure was followed.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition is primarily directed at the rapporteur's incompetence and their inability to answer the questions presented, especially regarding the justification for stripping Ukrainian citizens of their voting rights. The criticism is procedural, emphasizing that the respondent's attention drifted during the constitutional amendment process, which suggests the debate was disorganized and superficial.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
There is no collaborative style; the speaker addresses the chair of the session to ask for help maintaining order in the debate and reminding the rapporteur of the questions. The reference to the "good colleague social democrat" is cited as a negative example of the rapporteur's previous lack of focus.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on the national constitutional level and the international security context, analyzing the status of citizens of specific foreign countries (Russia, Ukraine, Moldova) in Estonia. There is no reference to local or regional issues.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social issue in Estonia is the voting rights of foreign nationals residing in the country, a topic being discussed in the context of security and loyalty. The speaker demands a justification for why citizens of Ukraine and Moldova should be deprived of their voting rights, questioning whether their political alignment poses a threat to Estonia.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is entirely centered on the draft act (Bill 536 SE) concerning the amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia regarding suffrage. The speaker is a critical analyst who demands a clear justification regarding the bill's security implications and the exclusion of specific groups of citizens from voting rights.
3 Speeches Analyzed