Session Profile: Andrei Korobeinik
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Third Session, Plenary Session.
2024-04-30
Political Position
The political stance is strongly opposed to the government’s fiscal policy, and is particularly critical of creating tax breaks for the wealthy while simultaneously taking money away from pensioners during the crisis. The speaker highlights the unjust redistribution, noting that the contribution of three pensioners is effectively funding the salary increase of a single Member of Parliament. Furthermore, questions are raised regarding the adequacy of state fees, specifically citing the 250 euro charge for express passport processing as unreasonable.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates a strong understanding of fiscal matters, particularly regarding the funding sources for pensions and the function of the social tax, citing the views of Maris Lauri. Concrete figures (such as 400 euros annually, 150 euros annually) are employed to illustrate the effect of salary increases and the contributions made by retirees. Furthermore, the speaker is knowledgeable about administrative charges (state duty) and the question of their adequacy.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, focusing on ethical issues and government accountability. Rhetorical questions are repeatedly employed when addressing the minister to underscore the injustice ("Do you consider this kind of approach appropriate during a crisis?"). Sarcasm is used when criticizing opponents (Jürgen Ligi), referring to his presentation as an "exciting insight into the mindset."
5 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active in the plenary session, repeatedly posing questions to ministers and commission representatives, and raising procedural questions with the session chair. This pattern of activity encompasses both substantive criticism and procedural oversight (e.g., concerning the minister evading a response and the length of the presentation).
5 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The confrontation with the government is intense and multifaceted, criticizing both specific policy choices (such as taking funds from pensioners) and procedural incompetence (the minister's evasion of providing an answer). The main opponents are the government as a whole and Jürgen Ligi, the representative of the Finance Committee, whose presentation was viewed merely as an introduction to the Reform Party's program. Andrus Ansip is quoted to emphasize the government's necessity to take responsibility and resign.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Cooperation with other factions is not mentioned, but the speaker addresses the presiding officer of the session for advice, showing a readiness to accept procedural assistance. To back up the argument, previous critical viewpoints from members of the opposition party (the Reform Party)—Ansip and Lauri—are used to demonstrate the government's internal inconsistency.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on national issues: state fees, the pension system, and the salary increases for members of the Riigikogu (Parliament) and ministers. A specific regional focus is absent, although pensioners "from the expanses of Estonia" are referenced in a general context.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic perspectives stress the importance of fiscal fairness and accountability during the crisis, taking a strong stand against tax benefits for the wealthy and pay raises for politicians. They demand the protection of pensioners' incomes and criticize unreasonable state fees, such as the 250 euros charged for expedited passport issuance.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The primary social issue revolves around the economic situation and fairness for pensioners, stressing that their contributions should not be used to finance salary hikes for politicians during a time of crisis. This is framed as a moral question concerning unequal redistribution.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is primarily on opposition oversight concerning the adequacy of state fees and the ethical aspect of budget policy. The speaker demands answers from the ministers and criticizes procedural violations (e.g., the inadequacy of the content of the Finance Committee's report).
5 Speeches Analyzed