Session Profile: Urmas Reinsalu

The political stance is strongly opposed to the Reform Party government’s fiscal policy, particularly regarding the forced implementation of the tax hump and the reduction of national defense spending. Although the supplementary budget is declaratively supported as a step in the right direction towards cutting administrative costs, it is fundamentally viewed as inadequate and failing to meet basic standards. The political framework is heavily focused on criticizing the incompetence of the government's actions (or inaction) and its financial management. The primary focus areas are the state's fiscal sustainability and ensuring security.

The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in state budgets, supplementary budgets, and tax policy, utilizing specific figures and technical terminology. Particular emphasis is placed on financial management errors, highlighting a double accounting mistake totaling 100.4 million euros attributed to the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Detailed data is employed regarding defense spending cuts (400 million euros) and the long-term impact of the income tax bracket structure (6 billion euros).

The rhetorical style is sharply critical, combative, and at times dramatic, employing strong judgments such as "irresponsible policy," "cynical grotesque," and "Latin American fiscal policy." The appeals are a mix of specific financial data and an emotional emphasis on the decline of state security and credibility. The speaker also uses figurative language, referring to the government's inaction as a "hostage crisis."

The speaker is active during the plenary session, posing specific questions to the former Minister of Finance and delivering an extended speech regarding the supplementary budget. Their patterns of activity demonstrate a rapid response to current events and media reports (e.g., the double accounting error). Furthermore, the speaker has been involved in submitting amendments to the supplementary budget.

The main criticism is aimed at the Reform Party government, accusing them of irresponsible policy, incompetence in financial management, and sacrificing security for the sake of election promises. The criticism is intense and addresses both specific political decisions (the tax hump, defense spending cuts) and the government’s overall capacity to govern. Coalition partners (Eesti 200, Social Democrats) are criticized for their subservience and silent acquiescence.

The style of cooperation is confrontational; the speaker criticizes the coalition partners for their submissiveness and notes that the coalition voted down Isamaa's substantive amendments aimed at improving the budget position in their entirety. No willingness to compromise is shown regarding the tax hump, which they demand be postponed.

The focus is clearly national and international, covering the Estonian state budget, security, aid to Ukraine, and Estonia's standing in the international competitiveness index. Particular emphasis is placed on Estonia's drop in the competitiveness index, placing it in the same group as Kazakhstan. Local or regional topics are absent.

Economic views emphasize strict fiscal discipline and responsibility, opposing the financing of ongoing fixed costs through borrowing, which creates an uncovered hole in the budget. The Reform Party’s tax hump is strongly opposed, even though it is considered manageable for the state. There is a recognized need to reduce administrative costs and restore confidence in the business sector to enhance international competitiveness.

Insufficient data.

The legislative focus centered on processing the supplementary budget and the related amendments, which were aimed at improving the budgetary position in 2024 and 2025. A significant priority was also the four-year postponement of the Reform Party's 'tax hump,' utilizing the six-month notice period required for tax legislation. Additionally, oversight was conducted regarding previous budgetary errors.