Session Profile: Andrei Korobeinik
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, extra plenary sitting
2024-06-19
Political Position
The political position is strongly oppositional, focusing on the incompetence of the government's economic policy (led by the Reform Party) and the ongoing economic recession. The speaker forcefully opposes the negative supplementary budget, specifically the cuts made at the expense of security and children with special needs, and supports the taxation of banking super-profits. The political framework is heavily results-oriented, highlighting Estonia's decline in economic competitiveness rankings.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in tax and budget policy, using specific data (e.g., Lithuania's social tax percentage and labor taxes) and referencing the absolute figures of the state budget deficit (in billions of euros). They also possess knowledge of legislative procedures, criticizing the committee's decisions and pointing to an unconstitutional approach.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is highly combative and critical, employing ironic metaphors (e.g., "the squirrel economic policy") to ridicule the government. It utilizes both logical arguments (such as competitiveness comparisons with Lithuania) and emotional appeals, stressing the unfairness of the cuts and the risk of poverty faced by pensioners. The language remains formal, yet the attacks are intense and personalized.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The pattern of activity is restricted to active and repeated participation in the Riigikogu plenary session concerning the processing of the supplementary budget, by submitting repetitive questions and delivering lengthy speeches.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponent is the Reform Party and the coalition, who are being criticized for economic incompetence, breaking promises, and outright lies (e.g., promising security cuts). The criticism is both political (concerning the content of the supplementary budget) and procedural (the committee’s decision not to forward Isamaa’s proposals). The speaker’s faction (the Center Faction) rules out any compromise, voting against the supplementary budget because it is fundamentally flawed.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker is demonstrating procedural solidarity with the Isamaa faction by criticizing the commission's double standards and the limitation placed on their proposed amendments. No willingness to compromise with the coalition has been expressed, as the supplementary budget is deemed irreparable.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is national (Estonian economy, budget deficit) and international, specifically involving the comparison of economic competitiveness with Lithuania concerning the bank tax and labor taxes. Specific local or regional projects are not mentioned.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic perspectives emphasize the necessity of increasing state budget revenues through a bank tax, which is projected to yield half a billion euros. There is strong opposition to abolishing the tax hump, which is deemed unreasonable and impoverishing for pensioners, alongside support for lowering labor taxes to improve competitiveness. Criticism is also leveled against the government’s inability to tackle the persistent economic recession.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
In the realm of social affairs, the focus is on protecting vulnerable groups and ensuring economic justice. Strong opposition is voiced against cuts affecting children with special needs, and emphasis is placed on the high poverty risk faced by Estonian pensioners—a risk exacerbated by the government's tax policy.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is centered on opposing the negative supplementary budget and supporting the bill for taxing banking super-profits. Furthermore, the need to improve budget transparency is emphasized, and the commission's decision to restrict the rights of members of parliament regarding the submission of amendments is criticized, as it is deemed unconstitutional.
4 Speeches Analyzed