Session Profile: Urmas Reinsalu

The political position is strongly opposed to the government's tax hikes (especially the car tax), highlighting the economic recession and public uncertainty. The core demand is the immediate reduction of governing costs through a negative supplementary budget, rather than raising taxes. The stance is based on both policy and performance, accusing the government of systematically creating uncertainty. On behalf of Isamaa, they promise to abolish the car tax in the future.

The speaker demonstrates expertise in macroeconomics and finance, citing the duration of the economic downturn (ten quarters) and the effect of tax hikes on revenue collection (a 1% decline in nominal growth equals 150 million euros less revenue). Furthermore, he is knowledgeable about the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure Act and parliamentary rules, criticizing the fast-track processing of the bill and the failure to adhere to the rule governing the interruption of the second reading. Additionally, he casts doubt on the actual scale of the supplementary national defense expenditures (1.6 billion euros) cited by the government to justify the tax increases.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and accusatory, combining emotional appeals (such as reading a letter from the mother of a disabled child) with logical and economic arguments. Strong metaphors are employed ("the government of uncertainty," "the spiral inflation vortex"), and it is stressed that the government lacks the support and legitimacy of the people. The speaker maintains a formal yet sharp tone, addressing the coalition sarcastically on the occasion of their "moment of victory."

The speaker is active during the extraordinary session, participating in both substantive debates and procedural disputes (such as requesting additional time or demanding the right to reply). He/She takes the opportunity to bring direct signals from society into the chamber by reading aloud a citizen's letter.

The primary standoff is aimed at the Kallas/Michal government and the Reform Party, who stand accused of systematically generating instability and violating the rules of parliamentary procedure. The criticism is both policy- and procedure-based, accusing the government of ignoring the will of the people (signals from the European Parliament elections). The opposition is intense and uncompromising, promising the repeal of the car tax.

The collaborative approach is aimed at uniting the opposition, calling on all members of parliament to vote against the car tax. When dealing with the coalition, the style is confrontational and uncompromising, stressing that while the government certainly has the majority and the power, it lacks legitimacy and public support.

Regional focus is lacking, with attention centered on broader national and economic issues, such as the livelihood of the Estonian people and the country's economic circumstances. The concerns are related to general well-being and the cost of living in Estonia.

The economic platform is firmly opposed to tax hikes, instead favoring a drastic reduction in government spending coupled with a negative supplementary budget aimed at stimulating the economy. Warnings are issued regarding the negative impact of tax increases (specifically VAT, car tax, and the taxation of pensions) on economic growth and inflation. The security and confidence of businesses and the elderly are being defended, emphasizing that these tax increases effectively strip the average wage earner of one month's salary and the pensioner of one month's pension.

Regarding social issues, emphasis is placed on the lack of security felt among families with children (child benefits), teachers (salary increases), and the elderly. Specific attention is drawn to the difficulties people with disabilities face in making ends meet, and the concerns of pensioners in the context of rising taxes. This includes stressing the vital importance of a car as a means of transport for disability card holders.

The legislative focus is on opposing the car tax law and allowing for its repeal. Significant emphasis is also placed on protecting the parliament's rules of procedure, criticizing the government for fast-tracking a law with a quarter-billion euro impact within ten astronomical hours.