By Plenary Sessions: Mart Võrklaev

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.