Agenda Profile: Urmas Reinsalu
Draft law (667 SE) for amending the Atmosphere Protection Act and other laws (partial transposition of amendments to the directive on greenhouse gas emission trading) - second reading
2025-09-10
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to Draft Bill 667 SE, focusing on its retroactive impact and its conflict with the principle of legitimate expectation and fundamental constitutional principles. The statements made are value-based and procedural, warning against "legal voluntarism" and stressing the necessity of protecting the business environment from unconstitutional legislation. The opposition is intense and centers on the legal legitimacy of state action.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in constitutional law (legitimate expectation, prohibition of retroactive effect) and legislative procedure, requesting clarifications regarding the memorandum from the Legal and Analysis Department. Specifically, detailed questions were raised concerning the figures and timeline for the taxation of maritime transport and state support, referencing the projected tax revenue growth (over 10 million euros by 2027).
8 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is critical, demanding, and procedural, at times becoming combative, especially when the accuracy of the Commission representative's answers is challenged ("a substantive answer that turned out to be false"). Strong figurative expressions are used ("Münchhausen maneuver," "to pay support from behind the corner," "legal nihilism"), and logical and legal argumentation is emphasized.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The pattern of activity is intensive and focused on one specific legislative debate (the second reading of Bill 667 SE), during which repetitive and clarifying questions are posed. The speaker also references personal conversations with businesses (Tallink) to verify the accuracy of the information presented by the committee.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The confrontation is directed at the committee presenting the draft bill and its representative (Tarmo), whose provided information (especially concerning the absence of protests from Tallink) is considered false and incomplete. The criticism is intense, focusing on procedural deficiencies, the concealment of actual protests, and the threat of unconstitutionality. The speaker accuses them of "arrogant behavior" and legal voluntarism.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Insufficient data.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is national and sector-specific, concentrating on the taxation of Estonian maritime transport and large enterprises related to the transposition of the EU directive. Specifically, Tallink, the Estonian Shipowners' Association, Viru Keemia Grupp, and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry are named, emphasizing their concern about the unconstitutionality of the draft bill.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic perspectives are highly critical of the introduction of new tax burdens, especially when they are retroactive and violate the principle of legitimate expectation. State action is viewed as illogical and inefficient (taxing and then paying out subsidies, described as a "Münchhausen maneuver"), and the business environment is defended by demanding legal stability.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Not enough data.
8 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on opposing Draft Bill 667 SE (transposition of the directive establishing the greenhouse gas emissions trading system) and reviewing its constitutionality. The speaker is acting as a procedural watchdog, demanding full information from the committee regarding stakeholder protests and the legal analysis before the vote on the proposed amendments.
8 Speeches Analyzed