Agenda Profile: Urmas Reinsalu

The speaker sharply opposes the government's supplementary budget, accusing the administration of a leadership crisis and an inability to make rational financial decisions. This political stance is heavily focused on achieving substantive policy change and stabilizing state finances, proposing, as the Isamaa alternative, an improvement in the budgetary position equivalent to 1.2% of GDP. He/She stresses that the outcome of the European Parliament elections clearly delegitimized the government's mandate, thereby demanding a fundamental shift in policy. The primary focus remains the criticism of the government's activities and effectiveness.

The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in state finance, budget execution, and fiscal policy, utilizing specific data and statistics. He/She analyzes detailed budgetary mechanisms, such as the interpretation of the non-earmarked reserve and transferable funds, highlighting contradictions between the formal and actual situation (e.g., a 5 million cut versus a 139 million increase). Precise figures are presented regarding funds unused last year (2.2 billion euros) and the long-term cost of the Reform Party's tax hump (6 billion).

The rhetorical style is critical, sharp, and penetrating, accusing the government of fearful and unethical conduct and labeling their policies "Latin American financial policy." The speaker combines logical appeals (specific financial figures and GDP percentages) with strong emotional judgments, faulting the government for micromanagement rather than substantive governance. Figurative language is employed (e.g., "the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on"), and ethical concerns regarding the reduction of support for Ukraine are highlighted.

The activities have focused on the handling of the supplementary budget bill at the Riigikogu plenary session and the raising of procedural questions, demanding that the Isamaa party’s amendments be put to a vote. The sending of a concerned letter to the leaders of the coalition parties regarding the situation that has developed in the country is also mentioned. The speaker is actively working to obstruct the processing of the bill, proposing to adjourn the second reading.

The primary confrontation is with the ruling coalition, and specifically the Reform Party, which is being accused of pursuing policies detrimental to Estonian interests and of incompetent financial management. The criticism is intense, targeting both substantive policy decisions (like the tax hump/curve and covering fixed costs with loans) and procedural maneuvers designed to avoid voting on amendments. The ruling alliance is being described as fear-driven and living out its final days.

The approach to cooperation is factional, involving the presentation of Isamaa's specific alternative supplementary budget proposals and demanding a vote on them. There is no indication of a willingness to compromise with the coalition; instead, the focus is on highlighting the coalition's failures and demanding substantive work.

The focus is on national fiscal policy, macroeconomic indicators (GDP decline), and security issues, including support for Ukraine. There is no focus on specific Estonian regional or local topics.

The economic perspectives emphasize fiscal discipline and a substantive reduction in government expenditures totaling 0.5% of GDP (200 million euros). The speaker is strongly opposed to tax increases (including land tax and car tax hikes) and the Reform Party's progressive tax structure (maksuküür), warning that standing expenditures are being financed by debt—an irresponsible, "Latin American-style" policy. The preference is for cutting costs rather than imposing new taxes.

Not enough data

The main legislative focus is the draft state supplementary budget (456 SE), the second reading of which the faction is requesting to suspend in order to conduct substantive work. Key priorities include postponing the Reform Party's tax hike, limiting administrative expenses and transferable appropriations, and avoiding the reduction of expenditures stipulated in the national defense development plan. The speaker is a strong opponent of the bill and the initiator of alternative amendments.