Agenda Profile: Urmas Reinsalu
Draft law amending the Emergency Situations Act and, as a consequence, amending other laws (426 SE) – third reading
2024-09-25
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
Political Position
The political position is to support the objectives of comprehensive security and the protection of vital services, while fundamentally opposing the implementation method of Bill 426 SE. The main criticism is directed at the government for breaking its promises regarding the reduction of bureaucracy and for the poor quality of the bill. This stance is strongly results-based, emphasizing the government's inability to make critical decisions (e.g., on long-range ammunition) and its engagement in substitute activities.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in assessing the impact of administrative burden and bureaucracy, presenting specific figures regarding new jobs (up to 400 in the private sector, 30 in the public sector) and the strain on local governments. He/She is also familiar with the strategic needs of national defense, referencing the advice of the Commander of the Defense Forces and the issue of long-range ammunition. He/She utilizes detailed data when analyzing governance costs and the payroll fund (up to 50,000 euros).
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is critical, confrontational, and accusatory, particularly regarding the government's failure to keep its promises ("Confusion reigns in your eyes"). The speaker employs strong logical arguments and statistical data to illustrate the size of the administrative burden, attempting to demonstrate the irrationality of the government's actions. Rhetorical questions and metaphors are utilized (e.g., Defense Forces companies in the form of bureaucrats).
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker regularly participates in Riigikogu debates, referring to previous statements and consistently monitoring the government's actions and responses. He/She is aware of the initiatives listed in the bill information system and the assessments provided by the government (the government's own analysis).
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main confrontation is directed at Kristen Michal's government and coalition, who are accused of hypocrisy, breaking promises, and the irrational increase of administrative costs. The criticism is both substantive (concerning bureaucracy) and procedural (the quality of the State Defence Committee's discussion was insufficient, and 110 pages of proposals were ignored). The government's actions are described as "optical maneuvers" and "substitute activity legislation."
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker emphasizes cooperation with business organizations and professional associations, whose expertise and 110-page proposals the government ignored. He/She expresses readiness to cooperate with other parties to block future burden-imposing legislation, such as the Climate Law.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is primarily at the national level (covering broad security and Estonian enterprises) and within the international context (the transposition of the EU directive). The regional dimension involves emphasizing the new administrative burden for 46 and 33 local governments, which will be required to hire additional employees.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The economic views expressed are strongly anti-bureaucracy and pro-business, criticizing the imposition of a new administrative burden (up to 100 million euros) and the creation of 400 new bureaucratic positions within the private sector. The speaker criticizes the government for feigning a nominal reduction in governance costs, while simultaneously increasing expenses item by item and raising taxes.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Not enough data
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is the opposition to the draft amendment of the Emergency Situation Act (426 SE) due to its method of implementation, while remaining critical of the draft’s quality and the legislative procedure. They oppose the draft, although they support the objectives of the underlying directive. Looking ahead, readiness has been emphasized to block the Climate Act, which is viewed as a new burden.
3 Speeches Analyzed