Session Profile: Pipi-Liis Siemann
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
2024-12-10
Political Position
The political stance centers on the standing orders of the Riigikogu and the regulation governing the absences of members of parliament. The speaker supports the leading committee's proposal to reject the draft legislation, arguing that it is too brief (laconic) and requires substantial supplementation, stressing that the fulfillment of a Member of Parliament's duties is, by law, continuous and uniform. The formulation of this position is heavily procedural and policy-driven.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates authority regarding the Riigikogu's procedural rules and the work of the Constitutional Committee, presenting a detailed overview of the bill's debate, procedural decisions, and voting results. He/She is fully aware of the current status of the law concerning the duties of members of parliament and uses technical terms such as "delegation norm" and "representative of the lead committee."
1 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is formal and procedural, focusing on facts and the communication of the commission's decisions. The speaker uses a critical tone to contrast the commission's constructive discussion with the non-substantive and tangential debate of the plenary session, specifically criticizing the use of "whataboutism." The appeal is primarily logical and centers on the correctness of the procedure.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The Speaker's scope of activity involves representing the Steering Committee and reporting the outcomes of its sessions (e.g., December 3rd) to the plenary. His role is procedural, conveying the procedural decisions and voting results adopted by the committee.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition is aimed at the initiators of the draft bill (represented by Lauri Laats), the rejection of whose proposal the committee recommended by a vote of 5 in favor and 3 against. Furthermore, the speaker criticizes the low standard of the plenary debate, accusing participants of straying from the topic and presenting irrelevant arguments (e.g., investment plans).
1 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker values the constructive cooperation achieved at the committee level, where they were able to substantively discuss the draft's deficiencies and reach a consensus regarding the legal status of the obligations of Members of Parliament. He/She characterizes the committee discussion as significantly more constructive compared to the plenary debate.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Not enough data
1 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data
1 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The speaker lacks a clear stance on social issues, but acknowledges that the current legal obligations of Members of Parliament fail to account for the burden of caring for family members or addressing health-related needs.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
Legislative focus has been directed toward a draft bill concerning the internal organization of the Riigikogu, specifically addressing the procedure for justifying the absences of its members. The speaker, representing the leading committee, supports the proposal to reject the bill, deeming it immature and deficient.
1 Speeches Analyzed