By Plenary Sessions: Mario Kadastik

The rhetorical style is highly formal, analytical, and procedural, focusing on the neutral conveyance of the work and decisions of the Economic Commission. The speaker employs logical arguments and data to justify the rejection of the draft bill, emphasizing rationality and potential major losses.

The rhetorical style is inquisitive, detailed, and logical, focusing on the precise interpretation of regulatory provisions and highlighting potential points for consideration. The tone is neutral and formal, with the objective of finding clarifications for technical and legal definitions.

The style is formal, analytical, and procedural, concentrating on the precise description of the commission's debates, dates, and voting outcomes. The argumentation is logical and data-driven, utilizing statistics and references to the historical context of the law (the transposition of the directive). The tone sharpens when the opposing side is labeled a "propaganda theme" aimed solely at attacking Bolt to secure votes.

The style of the discourse is formal, analytical, and critically inquisitive, directly stating that the presentation "caused a lot of confusion" and the claims seemed "a bit strange." The argumentation is purely logical, relying on market data (electricity price differences) to refute the claims presented.

The rhetorical style is formal, explanatory, and procedural, focusing on defining the scope of legislative actions and providing legal justification. Logical arguments are employed, clarifying both the provisions and limitations of the draft bill in order to mitigate potential concerns. The tone is moderate, knowledgeable, and authoritative, particularly when speaking as a representative of the lead committee.