Agenda Profile: Urmas Reinsalu
Second Reading of the Draft Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers Reporting Work-Related Infringements of European Union Law (257 SE)
2024-05-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session.
Political Position
The political stance strongly focuses on adhering to the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure Act and protecting the rights of members of parliament. The speaker forcefully opposes the decision by the Legal Affairs Committee to combine substantively different amendments into a single vote, labeling it a violation of law and an act of voluntarism. The focus is on the procedural and legal framework, protecting the rights of the parliamentary minority against "managed democracy."
6 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in the Riigikogu's procedural law and the Rules of Procedure Act, citing specific sections and Supreme Court rulings. Formal legal language is employed to challenge the principles and logic of bundling amendments, with mention also made of constitutional review. Complex legal dilemmas concerning the voting on conflicting provisions are presented.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, urgent, and emotional, expressing "complete bewilderment" and lodging vehement protests. Sharp and colorful metaphors are used, such as the "Brezhnev package," "democracy on tracks," and "tanks are not afraid of mud," to describe the procedural arbitrariness. The speaker repeatedly demands concrete legal answers, accusing the opponents of evading a response.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is actively participating in the Riigikogu session, engaging in an intensive debate with the rapporteur of the Legal Affairs Committee and the session chair. The activity is focused on resolving procedural questions and expressing opposition to the manner in which the draft bill is being processed. Mention is made of a previous lengthy debate with the Speaker of the Riigikogu, indicating consistent procedural obstruction.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The strong opposition is directed at the Legal Affairs Committee, its chairman, and the rapporteur (Mr. Odinets), as well as the Riigikogu Board (Mr. Kivimägi), which was chairing the sitting. The criticism is primarily procedural, accusing them of violating the law and restricting the rights of Members of Parliament. Opponents are accused of implementing "voluntarism" and "caterpillar democracy," and of evading responsibility.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The cooperative style is absent; the speaker is acting in the interests of the opposition (Isamaa), defending their right to vote on separate amendments. There is no sign of willingness to compromise; instead, strict legal correctness and adherence to procedural rules are demanded. The speaker refers to the committee's activity as a "sadomasochistic auxiliary service," which precludes cooperation.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Regional focus is lacking, except for a rhetorical reference to the governance of the city of Kohtla-Järve as an example of extreme disarray. The main attention is directed towards the internal procedure of the Riigikogu and national lawmaking.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data
6 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Not enough data
6 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on the proceedings for Bill 257 SE (Draft Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers Reporting Violations of European Union Law in the Workplace), with the speaker belonging to the opposition. The priority is restoring the right to separate voting on amendments (particularly those submitted by Isamaa), requiring the unbundling of linked proposals. The speaker also indirectly opposes the content of the bill, labeling it a "snitching project."
6 Speeches Analyzed