Agenda Profile: Rain Epler
Inquiry on Immigration (No. 133)
2024-01-15
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
Political Position
The political focus is heavily directed toward criticizing liberal immigration and integration policies, which are deemed failures ("a melting pot that has run into a dead end"). Furthermore, emphasis is placed on the necessity of the impartiality of the parliamentary session chair and strict adherence to procedural rules. The speaker's position is strongly oppositional, accusing the government of avoiding self-reflection. The political framework is rather value-based, centering on cultural differences and the aging of society.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates knowledge of international examples of immigration and integration, citing the negative experiences of Sweden and Germany. He also references foreign journalism (Financial Times) to support his position on the causes of radicalization. His second area of expertise is the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and the evaluation of the session chairman’s conduct, where he demonstrates a detailed memory of previous incidents.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetoric is critical, confrontational, and occasionally sarcastic, particularly when addressing the presiding officer (e.g., setting the timing in a "Slavic" manner). Personal analogies are employed (such as reading a bedtime story) to illustrate the robotic quality of the Prime Minister's performance. The speaker poses sharp rhetorical questions, demanding that opponents take responsibility and acknowledge their failures.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker actively participates in the sessions, referencing previous attempts at discussion and specific dates (last week, Monday), which demonstrates consistent attendance. They address both substantive matters (immigration) and procedural issues, striving to maintain order and fairness in the chamber.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the government (the prime minister) and the "liberals," who are accused of a failed integration policy. The Chair of the session is criticized for partiality, as he admonishes the opposition but allows his own party members ("a veteran colleague") to disrupt proceedings ("to rant/make a fuss") in the chamber. The criticism is intense and is aimed both at the political substance and the procedural unfairness.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Not enough data
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on the national level (Estonian integration policy) and international examples (Sweden, Germany), which are utilized as cautionary examples. The broader geopolitical context is also mentioned, such as the war in Ukraine and the repercussions of COVID, although these are treated as causes of radicalization proposed by others—causes that the speaker himself denies.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The economic views are indirect, criticizing the premise that immigration is necessary for the economic maintenance of an aging society and the continuation of the "good life." The speaker questions the sustainability of this model, pointing out that it is heading toward a dead end.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The speaker focuses on immigration and integration within the context of social problems, taking a stance against the introduction of migrants from other cultures. Concern is expressed regarding an aging society and radicalization, linking these issues to failed integration. The social policy framework is culturally conservative, emphasizing the failure of the melting pot model.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The focus is primarily on the procedural aspects of legislative work, criticizing the actions of the presiding officer and demanding that order be maintained in the chamber. The substantive focus lies in the criticism of immigration policy, which has been presented within the context of a formal interpellation, rather than through the initiation of new legislation.
2 Speeches Analyzed