Session Profile: Andrei Korobeinik
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
2025-04-10
Political Position
The political stance is adamantly opposed to the car tax, deeming it totally unfair and unconstitutional, particularly concerning disabled people and large families. The criticism centers on the law's actual negative social and regional impact, coupled with the coalition's lack of transparent communication. They promise to amend the tax if the Centre Party gains power, stressing the necessity of protecting the most vulnerable members of society.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
Demonstrates expertise in tax policy and legislative procedures (specifically within the Finance Committee), focusing on the details of the motor vehicle tax, such as the registration fee and the taxation of the so-called 'lost car'. Uses constitutional arguments, citing the infringement of Section 28 concerning the protection of vulnerable social groups. Furthermore, demonstrates knowledge of the correlation between regional policy and transportation choices.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is critical, combative, and insistent, leveling accusations against the coalition for opaque political communication—a practice described as "deceiving the people." It employs both logical arguments (such as the negative environmental impact and the absence of regional policy) and emotional appeals (like protecting the vulnerable). It stresses the necessity of honesty and clarity in the legislative process.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The patterns of activity demonstrate consistent and multi-layered opposition to the car tax. This includes submitting relevant proposals to the Finance Committee, appealing to the Chancellor of Justice and the President, and assisting citizens in filing appeals with the administrative court. This indicates a persistent opposition strategy that effectively utilizes legal channels.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the government coalition, specifically the Reform Party (for blocking proposals) and the Social Democrats (for misleading communication regarding the environmental tax). The criticism is intense and targets both procedural unfairness (obstructing the vote) and political dishonesty (the contradiction between the stated objective and the actual impact). The opposition is uncompromising, vowing to continue the fight even in court.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The style of cooperation is centered internally (the Center Party), highlighting the party's own actions when making proposals and taking legal steps. The lack of cooperation with the coalition is clear, as the coalition not only failed to support the proposals, but also argued they were insincere and blocked the vote.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
A strong regional focus, emphasizing that the car tax worsens the state of regional policy and forces people to leave rural areas. Pärnu County is cited as a specific example, where a car is essential due to limited public transport. Warnings are issued that this will lead to people relocating to the city or even Finland, thereby deepening the Riigikogu’s (Parliament’s) lack of awareness regarding regional policy.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic views are focused on opposing unfair taxes which impede regional mobility and disproportionately burden weaker segments of society. It criticizes the lack of transparency in how taxes are formulated and the practice of justifying tax increases with foreign policy factors ("Putin is raising taxes").
5 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
A strong social focus on protecting people with disabilities and large families, emphasizing that the state must guarantee them the special protection stipulated by the constitution. It is argued that the car tax forces these groups to give up their vehicles, which is detrimental to their quality of life.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is centered on amending or repealing the proposed car tax bill. We are an active opponent, having submitted specific amendments and appealed to legal authorities. The priority is correcting this unsuccessful legislation to ensure it protects families with many children and people with disabilities, while also guaranteeing transparency in the legislative process.
5 Speeches Analyzed