Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The speakers' position is primarily oppositional regarding specific government bills: they criticize tax hikes and the increase of bureaucracy, emphasizing the importance of the principle of legal certainty and impact assessments. The Centre Party faction clearly stated that the bill is unacceptable to them and is requesting a separate vote on the bill's title and the opportunity to halt proceedings. There is also criticism directed at the "copy-paste" method used for transposing EU directives, along with a desire for the country to conduct a thorough analysis and a constitutional and social debate before the legislation enters into force.

The presenters demonstrate awareness of the nuances inherent in both financial and legal topics, specifically addressing tax policy, the bank windfall tax, and the challenges of integrating impact assessment with legislative drafting. They refer to the transposition of European Union directives, highlighting the existing lack of compliance, and emphasize the necessity of carefully evaluating both resources and legal principles. Additionally, scholarly focus is being directed toward structuring regulations related to corporate disclosures and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

The speaking style is primarily argumentative and critical, often elliptical or incomplete, and heavily reliant on questions. The speeches utilize a strongly dominant core theme (e.g., legal certainty, impact assessment, "copy-paste" from EU directives), and the content contained many concerns and warnings regarding bureaucracy and administrative burden. The texts themselves are generally argumentative, characterized by long paragraphs, and frequently include rhetorical questions and critical remarks concerning the directions taken by commissions and the government.

Participation in the plenary is highly emphasized and multifaceted: speakers address several topics consecutively during the same session, referring to the work of the committees and the stages of the third reading. Specific procedural questions are raised (e.g., separate voting on amendments, suspension of proceedings), and the timetable is mentioned (third reading next Wednesday) along with a political decision suddenly brought to light. Such active, detailed participation, covering all aspects of the procedure, is clearly regular and focuses on proceduralized debate.

The core opposition manifests itself through criticism of the coalition and government bills. The Centre Party faction is withholding support for the bill and is demanding a separate vote and an adjournment of proceedings. The criticisms focus on the substance of the draft legislation and the role of the committee (specifically, the bundling of amendments and the political nature of the committee's decision). Intense fighting and comprehensive resistance are the dominant tones.

Collegiate cooperation is evident only to a limited extent: speakers accuse the commission of following government guidelines and claim that stakeholder hearings do not influence the final outcome. Some materials express the need to improve parliamentary cooperation (e.g., the possibility of separate votes, raising objections, etc.), but overall, the tone is forceful and less conducive to cooperation. It has been noted that there is a desire to involve the opposition in reviews and votes, but there is no significant, discernible trend of bipartisanship or broad-based cooperation.

Not enough data

Speakers in economic policy have prioritized not increasing the tax burden, and the impact of plans to abolish the tax 'hump' is considered critical. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the tax on banks' excess profits, and a desire to see the budget shortfall addressed through balanced taxation and tax hikes. There is a strong emphasis on the need to avoid bureaucracy and ensure efficient resource utilization. Furthermore, the focus remains on impact and transparency (for instance, providing clear information regarding the tax rates applied to compensation for non-pecuniary damage and parking fines).

The social aspects focused on legal certainty, the protection of employee reporting (whistleblowing), and issues concerning the compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Criticism has been leveled against the plan to allow or create a list of violations that qualify for whistleblower protection, and the necessity for clarity, transparency, and mitigating the risks of evasion is stressed in order to protect both employees and companies. The topic also touches upon the principles of social equality and being under special care (references to constitutional guarantees).

The primary objective is the legislative processing and impact analysis of various bills: the Whistleblower Bill, the Hate Speech Bill, and the mega-fines imposed by the Competition Authority. During the discussions, emphasis is placed on the need to vote separately on the bill's title, monitor the handling of amendments, and debate EU legislation instead of focusing solely on harmonization and analysis. Characteristic of the debate is the criticism regarding the "copy-paste" transposition of European Union directives, coupled with a demand for a thorough legal impact assessment (a "horse analysis") to be organized before the bill's adoption.