By Months: Mart Võrklaev

The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, particularly regarding the consequences of the proposed amendment for the environment and the budget. The speaker employs logical appeals and sharp contrasts (e.g., the country grandmother versus the car collector) to illustrate the injustice. The style is formal, incorporating direct objections and the refutation of facts (for instance, concerning Reinsalu and the progressive income tax).

The tone is predominantly formal, procedural, and at times sharp, particularly when responding to questions from the opposition. He/She consistently reiterates that they cannot answer questions that were not substantively discussed in the committee, shifting responsibility to the initiators of the draft legislation. Sharp rhetoric is employed, accusing the opposition (Isamaa, EKRE) of avoiding substantive debate, and requesting that they cease the insults and accusations of lying.

The style is formal and parliamentary, utilizing the addresses "Esteemed Chair of the Session" and "Esteemed Minister." However, the tone in the first speech is highly combative and accusatory, including direct questions regarding the distortion of facts. The argumentation relies primarily on logic and the presentation of specific calculations, rather than emotional appeals.

The style is highly formal, procedural, and informative, typical of a committee rapporteur. The tone is neutral and objective, focusing on conveying the committee's discussions and the experts' explanations. The speaker relies on logical arguments and the clarification of details, often using questions to achieve clarity ("Could you explain that a little more precisely?").