Session Profile: Urmas Reinsalu
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting.
2025-09-17
Political Position
The speaker vehemently opposes the mass collection of bank account data and the creation of a super database, deeming it an unconstitutional violation of people's freedoms and privacy. He demands the complete withdrawal of the law and that it be consigned to the dustbin, rejecting the coalition's plan to implement mere cosmetic changes. The political framework is strongly value-driven, centering on the defense of privacy and the absence of democratic legitimacy.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates profound knowledge of legal and procedural matters, particularly concerning data protection, constitutionality, and European Union law. He clearly distinguishes the scope of collecting account names and transaction data (dating back up to five years) and employs specific terminology such as "extrospection" and "artificial brain profiling robots." He relies on expert opinions from the Bar Association, legal professionals, and the Fundamental Rights Commission regarding the unconstitutionality of the statute.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is highly confrontational, demanding, and passionate. It employs sharp expressions ("a complete mess," "to throw in the trash") and uses irony when addressing the government's priorities. The speaker skillfully balances logical arguments (referencing unconstitutionality and warnings from legal experts) with powerful emotional appeals aimed at defending freedoms. They utilize repetition (lying, repealing the law) and address the coalition representatives directly.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active during the parliament's plenary session, raising both substantive questions (addressed to Ando and Ms. Lauri) and procedural inquiries (concerning, for example, the right to withdraw the bill). Their activity is intensely focused on challenging and criticizing the ongoing legislative procedure.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main criticism is aimed at the governing coalition (specifically Mrs. Laur and Jürgen Ligi) and ministers who are accused of lying, deliberately forcing through an unconstitutional law, and evading the public eye. The criticism is both political (the construction of a surveillance state) and procedural (lying about the necessity of EU law). A compromise (a cosmetic change) is categorically rejected, with demands for complete repeal.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker demonstrates an extremely low willingness to cooperate with the coalition, demanding the withdrawal of the law and threatening its annulment in the future. He/She refers to Isamaa's appeal to the president, which demonstrates the faction's internal unity in opposing the legislation.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The speaker's focus is on the national level (Estonian society, taxpayer money) and the international legal space (an unprecedented infringement of the EU legal order). He/She ironically mentions "bringing prisoners to Tartu" as a government priority, but emphasizes that this is not a regional policy focus.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The speaker expresses concern regarding the government's priorities in the context of the economic crisis and stagnation, and defends the interests of entrepreneurs and the financial sector. He/She refers to the quarter-billion euro claim outstanding from LHV bank and criticizes the legislation as an unnecessary expense that squanders taxpayer money.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The speaker places a strong emphasis on civil liberties and privacy, opposing the mass collection of personal data and the establishment of a surveillance state. They highlight concerns that health data (specifically, payment records or transactions made to doctors) could potentially end up in a massive centralized database.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is the opposition and repeal of the Super Database Act (anti-money laundering measures). The speaker is a vocal opponent of this bill, focusing on the procedural quality ("shoddy work") and issues of constitutionality. They also inquire about procedural rights, such as the possibility of withdrawing the bill.
4 Speeches Analyzed