By Plenary Sessions: Mart Võrklaev

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and substantive, focusing on the economic impact of political decisions. The tone is laudatory and balanced when describing the activities of the Bank of Estonia, but cautious and questioning regarding the risks associated with fiscal policy. Logical arguments are employed, and specific legislative initiatives are referenced, concluding on a positive, even cheerful, note with the topic of Sipsik.

The rhetorical style is formal, courteous, and appreciative, expressing gratitude to the presenter and commending the Financial Supervisory Authority for its "excellent work." The address is structured as a logical and detailed question, seeking specific information regarding the processes of implementing the law and its market impact.

The style is formal, explanatory, and authoritative, centering on logical arguments and the political necessity of protecting depositors. The speaker answers questions directly, employing technical language and citing examples where risks have materialized (bankruptcies, loss of funds).

Style S1 is aggressive and accusatory, employing rhetorical questions and emotional language ("tax madness") to criticize the opposition. Style S2 is explanatory and defensively rationalizing, focusing on the validity of the measures and collaboration, and describing the agreement as "solid and decent."

The style is twofold: when presenting legislation, it is formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on the commission's decisions and amendments. However, in political confrontation (the issue of Rae municipality), the tone is direct, defensive, and combative, forcefully refuting opponents' claims and accusing them of intimidation.

The rhetorical style is formal, businesslike, and procedural, characteristic of a commission rapporteur. The speaker focuses on the logical and objective transmission of information, referencing the questions and answers presented to the commission. The speech is detailed and fact-focused, avoiding emotional appeals.

The speaker's rhetorical style is formal and critical, posing direct questions to the minister regarding failures in financial management. Logical argumentation is employed, relying on specific financial data and statistics to underscore the severity of the poor budget planning issue. The tone is concerned and demanding, seeking clarification as to why the funds cannot be utilized judiciously.

The style is formal and respectful, including a direct address to the minister. The speaker employs logical arguments and data (percentages) and expresses recognition for the work of the Ministry of Finance and the interior ministries, maintaining a constructive and inquiring tone.

The style is formal, analytical, and procedural, particularly concerning the report of the Finance Committee. The speaker relies on facts, the specifics of the draft legislation, and the committee’s consensus decisions, maintaining a neutral and explanatory tone. The first address is question-based and expresses concern regarding the prudence of fund allocation, while the second address is purely informative and describes the procedure.

The style is formal and analytical, focusing on facts and procedural matters, including the precise citation of committee meeting dates and constitutional articles. The speaker employs logical arguments and adopts a defensive position when discussing the transparency and inclusiveness surrounding the law's adoption. He/She frames political viewpoints as lessons learned, stressing the necessity of inquiring about the sources of funding before authorizing expenditures.

The style is highly formal, procedural, and fact-based, emphasizing the necessity of adhering strictly to the role of the committee rapporteur and avoiding personal opinion. The criticism directed at the opposing draft is logical and focuses on substantive and technical deficiencies, employing terms such as "sparse" and "flawed." The speaker simultaneously acknowledges the opposing side's substantive debate in the chamber, even though such debate was lacking in the committee.

The style is initially formal and procedural, focusing on the role of the commission's rapporteur and the details of the procedure. In the fourth speech, the tone shifts to sharp, defensive, and confrontational, employing direct accusations (false charges) and questioning the motives of the opponents (the Social Democrats). The emphasis is on the logical opposition to increased taxation.

The style is sharply critical and argumentative, frequently employing rhetorical questions to highlight the opponents' irresponsibility and the folly of their decisions. The speaker relies heavily on facts and chronology, linking the current topic (Nordica) with earlier political and criminal scandals (Porto Franco). The tone is formal, yet it conveys emotional indignation over the waste of taxpayer money.

The rhetorical style is confident and data-driven, relying heavily on figures and statistics. However, it is also directly confrontational, incorporating a touch of irony ("I will reveal a big secret to you") and concluding with a direct, accusatory question regarding the opponents' voting behavior in 2023.

The tone is serious and insistent, highlighting the plight of those suffering and the intractability of the problem, referencing "very sad stories." The speaker employs both emotional appeals and a logical demand for clarity. The style is direct and critical of political procrastination and "political gamesmanship."

The tone is one of concern and criticism, particularly regarding the amendments introduced into the draft legislation, highlighting logical inconsistencies and unfairness. The speaker employs analogies (a grandmother in the countryside versus a car collector) and presents their position directly and with strong arguments, successfully rebutting the claims of the opposition. The overall appeal relies mainly on logic and facts, centering on the policy's negative repercussions for both the environment and the budget.

The speaker's style is formal, factual, and procedural, focusing on the neutral conveyance of legislative progress and committee decisions. The emphasis is on logical argumentation and facts, especially when referencing budget calculations and consensus amendments. The tone is rather mediating and explanatory.

The rhetorical style is critical, analytical, and concerned, highlighting the complex situation of the state's finances. The speaker employs logical appeals, focusing on the lack of transparency and substantive deficiencies in the opposition's proposal. The tone is formal and direct, encompassing both criticism and a call for Isamaa to rectify its budget.

The rhetorical style is formal, procedure-centric, and at times defensive, focusing on the committee’s rules of procedure and protocols. He has repeatedly been forced to defend his actions and reject accusations of lying or evasion. He uses the repeated phrase regarding the lack of substantive debate in the committee to avoid answering detailed policy questions in the plenary hall.

The rhetorical style is formal, substantive, and procedural. The speaker directly poses a question aimed at obtaining confirmation from the minister regarding the existence of a specific provision of the law. The tone is neutral and focuses on logical and legal clarity.

The rhetorical style is defensively confrontational and direct, starting by accusing the opponent of distorting facts and neglecting to combat lying. The appeal is primarily logical and fact-based, focusing on clarifying details and presenting numerical evidence to refute counterarguments.

The style is highly formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing exclusively on conveying the deliberations and decisions of the Finance Committee. The discourse is fact-based, incorporating numerous specific figures, dates, and references to legal statutes, with the objective of providing the full assembly with a detailed overview. Emotional or ideological appeals are absent; logical and technical argumentation predominates.

The rhetorical style is polite and formal, respectfully addressing the chair of the session and the minister. The style is interrogative, focusing on logically obtaining explanations regarding the details of policy implementation. The speaker acknowledges positive initiatives, describing the Ministry of Climate's previous work as "highly commendable."