By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits
Total Sessions: 50
Fully Profiled: 50
2025-10-16
XV Riigikogu, VI Session, Plenary Sitting
The style is sharp and confrontational, employing strong characterizations regarding the opponent's alleged positions ("the people are stupid and fat"). The speaker emphasizes the opposing side's consistent opposition, attempting to provoke an emotional reaction and expose the opponent's motives. Although the chairman and the rapporteur are addressed politely, the content itself is aggressive.
2025-10-15
The 15th Riigikogu, VI Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and penetrating, emphasizing the urgency of the situation ("The ground is burning under our feet"). It employs irony and sarcasm directed at the government, labeling their initiatives as "cosmetics" and the Parliament (Riigikogu) a "rubber stamp." Strong terms are utilized, such as "sadistic approach," and other politicians are quoted who refer to the EU plan as a "monstrous plan."
2025-10-13
15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is sharp, direct, and confrontational, employing strong metaphors (e.g., "cutting a cripple's haircut" to describe the reform). The minister is often addressed directly, with questions posed that challenge the government's competence and integrity. Irony and allusions to scandals (Slava Ukraini) are employed, and explanations are also requested in language understandable to the "common folk."
2025-10-08
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and often sarcastic, employing colorful expressions such as the "werewolf bill" and referencing the minister's alleged comment about the weight of Estonians. He/She combines emotional appeals (concerns regarding people with disabilities) with technical and procedural issues, demanding clarity and accountability. The overall tone is accusatory, particularly toward the Riigikogu leadership concerning the scheduling of the agenda item.
2025-10-07
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is highly aggressive, ironic, and confrontational, employing strong negative language such as "trash" and "nonsense." The speaker levels personal accusations regarding the minister's arrogant conduct and the insulting of colleagues, demanding procedural intervention from the chair. Emotional and personal attacks are favored over detailed logical analysis, even though the criticism initially addresses substantive issues.
2025-10-06
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The tone is predominantly confrontational, critical, and ironic, employing sharp metaphors such as "running over like a steamroller" and "putting the puppy in its place." It employs emotional appeals, highlighting the public's opposition (77,442 "no" votes) and a personal experience regarding the impact of war in the Elva municipality. It attempts to personally attack opponents, criticizing the ministers' past actions and their "braggadocio."
2025-09-25
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The style is extremely combative, dramatic, and straightforward, employing powerful metaphors and historical comparisons (e.g., "steamroller," "Leonid Brezhnev," "the government of the blind and the deaf"). The speaker utilizes both logical, data-driven criticism and emotional appeals, describing social inequality ("suck your paw or chew the grass") and calling the populace to protest on Toompea.
2025-09-23
15th Riigikogu, 6th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is direct and interrogative, relying heavily on rhetorical questions to challenge specific details and statistics. The tone is at times confrontational, especially when criticizing the rigidity of the Riigikogu (Parliament) and the minister's absence, using phrases like "shut up and we'll do it this way." The emphasis is placed on logical argumentation and procedural correctness.
2025-09-22
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is confrontational, using blunt and colloquial phrases ("so idiotic," "you're dawdling," "a complete joke") and personal anecdotes (the visit to Vaindloo, discussing matters with Harry Männil). He employs emotional appeals, accusing the government of arrogance and of labeling critics as "Russian agents," and emphasizes the need to "bring the truth to light."
2025-09-18
15th Estonian Parliament, 6th sitting, plenary session.
The style is formal and interrogative, especially when addressing economic logic ('What is the logic behind this?'). The speaker grounds their arguments in comparative statistical data and facts, deliberately avoiding emotional appeals. They also pay close attention to procedural details.
2025-09-17
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and even aggressive, utilizing strong and negative metaphors (e.g., "mangy badger," "rotten decayed tree," "sheep/rams"). The speaker appeals both to emotions (embarrassment, agony) and to logical criticism regarding the sloppiness and rushing of the legislative process. He/She often poses sharp rhetorical questions and personal challenges to the presenters.
2025-09-17
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, press briefing.
The tone is critical and concerned, employing strong judgments (e.g., "exceptionally low"). The style is formal, addressing the Speaker of the Riigikogu with a rhetorical question that underscores the coalition's lack of trust and respect.
2025-09-16
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and emotionally charged, utilizing phrases such as "stubbornly" and "the lust for snooping." He poses rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the motives of his opponents and expresses impatience regarding the silence of the Eesti 200 faction on a crucial issue.
2025-09-15
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting
The tone is extremely confrontational, critical, and passionate, utilizing powerful emotional appeals and making direct calls for strikes. Colorful metaphors are employed (for example, referring to the government as a "rotten tree" or "bardakk" [a mess/shambles]) alongside rhetorical questions, highlighting the government's ignorance and disorganization. The style is more narrative and emotional, rather than dry and politically correct, addressing public sector workers directly.
2025-09-11
15th Riigikogu, 6th plenary sitting
The style is initially surprisingly appreciative and respectful towards the speaker ("such clear and smart talk"), but it quickly shifts to being critical and questioning. Both direct and figurative expressions are used (e.g., "to send to the trash can," "in a great hurry"), emphasizing the dangers inherent in haste.
2025-09-10
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and ironic, utilizing strong metaphors ("boar in the rye," "steamroller drivers," "even a pig won't eat it") and down-to-earth expressions. Literary comparisons (Tolstoy's "War and Peace") are used to emphasize the scale and complexity of the draft legislation. The speaker balances emotional condemnation (arrogance) with concrete financial data and citations (Tallink's positions).
2025-09-10
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, press briefing
The rhetorical style is confrontational and accusatory, posing a question that directly implies the head of government's incompetence ("Is the issue that you are simply unable to cope?"). Emotional emphasis is placed on negative statistics and international comparisons. The tone is formal (an information briefing), but the content is sharply aggressive.
2025-09-09
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is very confrontational, emotional, and urgent, using strong language (e.g., "idiotic," "shambles," "laughing stock"). He supports his claims with personal experiences and dramatic elements, such as presenting security camera footage and the sound of an explosion, and showing a physical piece of the drone. The style is aimed more at storytelling and emotional impact, emphasizing the lack of trust in state leaders.
2025-09-08
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The speaking style is sharp, emotional, and often sarcastic, using strong words to describe the actions of ministers and the government, such as "slack behavior," "mass murder" (referring to the destruction of seedlings), and "war Moloch." Vivid comparisons are used (the work of a bee, a dog on a haystack) and historical parallels (the pivotal times of 1940). It favors storytelling (the milk loss of a farmer friend, the women of the Iisaku nursery) and rhetorical questions to emphasize the government's inaction and inefficiency.
2025-09-04
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The style is often confrontational and critical, employing emotional and figurative comparisons (Big Peter and Little Peter, mass murder, society's distorting mirror). He/She uses anecdotal and personal observations (visits to border checkpoints, the Palamuse fair) to illustrate the arguments. The tone is frequently concerned and urgent, particularly when addressing the destruction of state assets or injustice.
2025-06-19
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is critical, urgent, and combative, employing strong emotional expressions (e.g., "extremely dangerous," "the chicken flock is powerful"). It utilizes both procedural logic and high emotional intensity, comparing the situation to the declaration of martial law to underscore its gravity. Rhetorical questions and irony are also used ("let the chickens attack").
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The speaker's rhetorical style is demanding, skeptical, and at times dramatic, utilizing phrases like "terrible consequences" and "frightening" to underscore the seriousness of the threat. He focuses on logical arguments, repeatedly demanding analysis and careful consideration to avoid vague answers regarding legislative delays. The tone is formal, addressing the chairman and the rapporteur.
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, information briefing
The rhetorical style is formal (using addresses such as "esteemed chairman," "esteemed prime minister"), but the content is provocative and confrontational. A strong rhetorical question and juxtaposition (OECD vs. Venezuela/Russia) are employed to emphasize the criticism and create a sense of urgency.
2025-06-17
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The speaker employs an extremely combative, emotional, and biting rhetorical style, repeatedly using strongly negative adjectives such as "obscene" and "shameful." He relies heavily on literary and historical comparisons (Orwell's *1984*, Big Brother, a Stalinist future) to frame political decisions as existential threats to freedom. He makes direct accusations that the media is biased and carrying out political mandates, thereby underscoring the gravity of his views.
2025-06-16
XV Riigikogu, V Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and at times colloquial, employing negative and colorful expressions to describe procedures ("dicking around," "slacking off," "a total shambles"). He uses historical context and references to previous failures to underscore the pointlessness of the current situation. The speaker poses direct and accusatory questions to the ministers, highlighting procedural failure.
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The speaker’s style is passionate, at times combative, and dramatic, employing powerful metaphors ("burning money," "the steamroller," "even a fool gets beaten in church"). He blends emotional appeals (shame, poverty) with logical and statistical data to underscore the arrogance and incompetence of the rulers. The overall tone is critical and cautionary.
2025-06-10
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting.
The style is analytical and logical, employing practical metaphors (such as tailoring a suit) to clarify complex legislative flaws. The tone is constructive, yet it stresses the urgency of implementing corrections to prevent issues related to children's catering. In the initial address, the tone is critical and interrogative concerning the efficacy of the Supreme Court Chief Justice's report.
2025-06-09
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is sharp, sarcastic, and combative, employing ironic titles (the prime minister as "chief butler") and powerful metaphors ("the ham party has been replaced by the cheap sausage party," the government's behavior as a "steamroller"). The speaker utilizes both emotional appeals (Weltschmerz, fear of war) and references to classics (Orwell) and statistics to highlight the chasm between the government's narrative and reality. Finally, the tone is occasionally milder, referencing the start of a football match.
2025-06-04
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The speaker’s rhetorical style is sharp, provocative, and often sarcastic, employing powerful metaphors, such as describing parliamentary work as "intellectual onanism" (a fruitless, yet vigorous activity). They utilize both logical arguments (figures, legal statutes) and emotional appeals, characterizing the impact of these generators/sources as a "cacophony of light and shadows" that drives one mad. The overall tone is concerned, yet simultaneously ironic.
2025-06-02
15th Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session
The style is critical and passionate, focusing on highlighting the injustice faced by small beekeepers, utilizing both statistical data and emotional appeal. Figurative and sharp expressions are used ("ministry bigwigs," "a miserable game of telephone," "pocket change"), along with rhetorical questions, to emphasize political superficiality. The tone is formally polite, but substantively demanding and accusatory.
2025-05-21
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The tone is critical, questioning, and ironic, referring to the minister’s report as a "haiku-style presentation." Strong metaphors are employed (the Estonian economy is stuck in the mud, stones tied to the feet of entrepreneurs) to underscore the economic damage. Detailed data and forecasts are constantly demanded, challenging the government's assertions of minimal impact.
2025-05-20
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The style is direct and interrogative, focusing on obtaining specific data and clarifications ("How many are there?", "Who are they?"). Although the salutation is formal ("Esteemed Minister!"), it demands that the content of complex topics be explained "in plain language," indicating a desire to simplify technical information. The tone is businesslike and demanding.
2025-05-19
15th Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The style is formal and direct, addressing the director, the prime minister, and the minister. The speaker uses rhetorical questions to call into question the government's priorities and actions. The tone is questioning and critical, emphasizing the need to more strongly defend one's own interests.
2025-05-14
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The speaker's tone is highly critical, blunt, and often emotional, repeatedly using the word "embarrassing" and phrases like "we are acting foolishly" and "for heaven's sake." He/She employs numerous rhetorical questions and colloquial comparisons ("small as a flea," "babbling/prattling") to underscore the futility of the parliament's actions. The argument rests on both personal values (lessons learned from his/her mother) and logical critique (time wasted versus the economic crisis).
2025-05-13
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is critical and analytical, employing powerful metaphors (e.g., the Parliament as a "scented rubber stamp" and laws as "two large ships"). The speaker highlights systemic and procedural flaws, often posing questions to the minister or rapporteur to underscore inconsistencies. The tone is rather concerned and accusatory, stressing the necessity of clear-headed thinking.
2025-05-08
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The speaker's rhetorical style is direct and interrogative, using a personal analogy ("For some reason they don't want me") to introduce a political topic. Speculative and rhetorical questions are employed (e.g., the theory of women being easier prey) to elicit a detailed response, while maintaining a tone that is formal yet personal.
2025-05-07
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is candid and conversational, starting with an expression of confusion regarding the bill's procedure. The speech concludes with a critical and ironic remark about the format of parliamentary debates, where speakers are free to talk about everything under the sun.
2025-05-06
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is a blend of personal experience and procedural criticism, remaining generally analytical and direct. He employs strong metaphors, comparing the power of apex predators in the forest to the power of the ruling government coalition. While he criticizes political arrogance (Jürgen Ligi) and inefficiency, he concludes the message on a conciliatory note, stressing the necessity of cooperation and wishing everyone a pleasant spring.
2025-05-05
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and demanding, using rhetorical questions to demand accountability ("who is going to pay for this?"). The speaker employs highly emotionally charged and pejorative phrases, such as "molutanud" (wasted time/dilly-dallied), and quotes a folk proverb ("even a fool gets beaten in church") to characterize the government's actions.
2025-04-24
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and insistent, utilizing strong emotional expressions and even profanity when describing the government’s attitude ("Shit on the people"). The speaker combines specific technical facts (ornithology) with moral indignation and accusations of corruption. He criticizes the lack of knowledge prevalent in the hall and the format of a party meeting.
2025-04-23
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is critical and blunt, expressing embarrassment over the Riigikogu's (Estonian Parliament's) use of time and employing strong emotional appeals regarding the public's exhaustion. The speaker uses comparisons (Estonia vs. Finland) and contrasts legislative activity with the actual economic situation. They demand that complex topics be explained in "plain language" (or "layman's terms") and include personal assessments of politicians (Kaja Kallas, Kristen).
2025-04-22
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is direct and critical, employing both procedural and substantive questions to challenge the appropriateness of the actions taken by the minister and the Cultural Endowment. The speaker emphasizes the significance of the topic ("a crucially important area") and uses a specific, detailed, and emotionally charged example to illustrate their criticism.
2025-04-21
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is formal and interrogative, addressing the manager and the presenter respectfully. Light provocation is used ("strange similarity with Russia") to emphasize the topic of e-elections. The emphasis is on acquiring logical and fact-based information.
2025-04-16
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is incisive, interrogative, and skeptical, employing ironic phrases such as "green fever" and "wet dream" to critique past decisions. The speaker poses numerous direct questions, demanding substantive clarification and numerical verification (percentages, plans). Personal and provocative questions (for instance, regarding Kaja Kallas's gender/sex) are also utilized to grab attention.
2025-04-15
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The rhetorical style is confrontational and accusatory, employing strong emotional terminology such as "enemy" and references to the "occupation regime." The speaker balances this emotional appeal (the exhaustion of the populace) with a logical demand for procedural correctness (impact assessments).
2025-04-14
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetoric is sharp, suspicious, and confrontational, utilizing emotional expressions such as "the root of all evil" and "baroness." The speaker presents logical counterarguments, citing specific dates, but stresses the narrative of corruption and the redistribution of wealth. He addresses the prime minister personally, urging them to speak clearly, and concludes with an urgent appeal to investigative journalism.
2025-04-10
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The speaker employs a highly combative and emotional rhetorical style, utilizing strong labels like "stupid decisions," "faulty execution," and "enemies of the people." He balances the logical appeal (the necessity of impact assessments) with an emotional appeal, using an anecdotal story about an entrepreneur to illustrate the policy's detrimental effects. He praises the Chancellor of Justice, referring to his report as "a breath of fresh air."
2025-04-09
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and highly personal, employing emotionally charged metaphors ("death sentence," "the car tax is your child," "buying an indulgence"). The speaker addresses direct questions to the responsible parties (Mart, Rene) regarding their personal conscience and conduct. The tone is accusatory, centering on the opponents' accountability, and raises the issue of the rise of verbal violence within the country.
2025-04-08
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The style is sharp, critical, and at times colloquial, using blunt phrases (e.g., "what the management of these stock market firms has got in their pants"). The speaker employs strong emotional appeals, describing the economy as being "stuck in the mud" and accusing the Finance Minister of wasting valuable time. He poses rhetorical questions, calling the wisdom of the action into doubt.
2025-04-07
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The address is extremely formal, brief, and procedural, fulfilling the requirements for the taking of the oath of office. The tone is serious and respectful, as the speaker addresses colleagues ("Dear colleagues!").