By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Ernits

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.