By Plenary Sessions: Ants Frosch

The rhetorical style is direct and critical, posing two clearly distinct yet sharp questions to the minister. The emotionally charged term "blood money" is used to convey ethical condemnation. The political questions, in contrast, are logical and focus on risk analysis, the timeframe, and international cooperation.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, presenting a question to the minister based on legal principles. It employs both logical argumentation and intense emotional expressions (such as "the callous and brutal trampling of rights") to underscore the criticism.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and at times dramatic, utilizing both legal argumentation and figurative comparisons ("Game of Thrones," "blood money"). The speaker presents logical appeals, emphasizing the need to amend the law to ensure security, but also adds strong emotional accusations regarding the coalition's corrupt connections. The tone is formal, yet simultaneously insistent and accusatory, underscoring the decline of democracy.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and critical, employing strong and judgmental phrases like "schizophrenic division" and "public transport is a delusion." The speaker poses direct questions and challenges to the Prime Minister, demanding answers regarding both the contradictions in foreign policy and the disregard for local reality.