By Plenary Sessions: Jaak Aab

A formal and neutral style, focusing on the presentation of facts without emotional judgments. It employs formal parliamentary discourse, a structured presentation method, and precise terminology, even correcting its own statements regarding dates.

Uses a moderate and constructive tone, opening politely with the salutation: "Honorable Speaker! Dear Riigikogu!" It balances fact-based arguments with an optimistic outlook for the future. The speech is logically structured, providing specific examples and figures, yet maintaining accessible language. It concludes with an expression of gratitude, demonstrating parliamentary courtesy.

The speaker employs direct and confrontational rhetoric, combining fact-based arguments with emotional accusations. He/She acknowledges the opponent’s rhetorical skills ("you are powerful in rhetoric"), but then shifts to sharp criticism. The style is formal, yet it also includes personal appeals and rhetorical questions concerning the opponent's credibility.

The approach employed is moderate and fact-based. It honestly acknowledges the project's issues (delays, cost overruns, complex governance structure) while simultaneously highlighting positive progress. It relies on concrete data and facts, steering clear of emotional rhetoric. A constructive and professional tone is maintained, even when addressing critical questions.

Employs a factual, explanatory tone coupled with a diplomatic approach. It balances technical details with political explanations, honestly acknowledging difficult choices ("nothing can be done about it"). Attempts to steer the discussion back to the specific draft bill when questions stray into broader topics. Uses consensus-building language and references expert opinion.