By Plenary Sessions: Raimond Kaljulaid
Total Sessions: 38
Fully Profiled: 38
2025-11-06
XV Riigikogu, VI Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, opening with a polite acknowledgment of the minister's presentation. The appeal is logical and fact-based (investment horizon, pace), while simultaneously expressing concern within the context of the security crisis. The tone is measured, but the substance is challenging.
2025-11-03
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is provocative and critical, posing direct questions to the minister regarding the acknowledgment of financial facts. The argumentation is strongly logical and data-driven, relying on official analyses when assessing the consequences of the government's tax reform.
2025-10-08
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetoric is concrete, question-oriented, and highly detailed, utilizing everyday examples (e.g., corn sticks) to illustrate political definitions. The tone is rather neutral, focusing on clarifying facts and procedural details. The speaker emphasizes the connection between their questions and the interests of the constituents.
2025-10-06
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is critical, sharp, and employs irony, comparing the exchange to a "Tujurikkuja" sketch. Simplifying analogies are used (e.g., the Swedbank client), and the perspective of an Estonian parent is highlighted to underscore the lack of accountability. Questions are directed straight to the minister, demanding clear answers regarding reputational damage and budget transparency.
2025-09-22
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is a blend of sharp political attack and detailed, data-driven analysis. Both emotional appeals (such as leaving frontline workers "out in the rain") and ironic metaphors (like the Center Party's "lemonade machine") are utilized. The tone is predominantly critical and at times combative, particularly concerning the fiscal policies of the Center Party and right-wing parties, though one speech also offered procedural recognition to the Minister of the Interior.
2025-09-17
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and urgent, emphasizing the life-saving nature of the subject matter and the gravity of the security threats. It employs both logical argumentation (changes necessitated by risks, the significance of the time factor) and emotional appeal (the saving of human lives and family members). The speaker expresses appreciation for the drafters of the bill and their colleagues.
2025-09-15
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is critical, substantive, and demanding, emphasizing the weakness of parliamentary oversight and the government's avoidance of responsibility. The appeals are primarily logical and fact-based, referencing specific dates, laws, and documents (e.g., the National Audit Office report). The tone is occasionally amusing (a reference to the chancellor's response regarding accountability), but is generally sharp and accusatory.
2025-09-10
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, polite, and analytical, beginning with praise for the presenter ("Excellent presentation!"). The tone is inquisitive and logical, focusing on economic facts and consequences rather than emotions.
2025-09-09
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is critical, analytical, and at times ironic, particularly when ridiculing the minister's alleged conviction (the "120 percent" claim). The speaker employs logical arguments, linking calculation errors directly to real financial costs (borrowed funds and interest). He criticizes the "silo" format, where the executive branch leaves the chamber, and urges his colleagues to take an active interest in the issues at hand.
2025-09-08
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is analytical, rigorous, and logic-driven, stressing the necessity of concrete figures and metrics over emotional assessments. Comparative examples (e.g., the private sector, Nordic countries, Ukraine) are employed to logically substantiate the arguments. The tone remains formal and respectful, yet the questions are designed to elicit specific responses.
2025-09-04
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The style of discourse is formal, critical, and often pressing, emphasizing the severity of the problems and the potential damage to the state's reputation or security. It utilizes both logical arguments (referencing laws and audits) and emotional appeal (citing the safety of children and the threat to the reputation of the Riigikogu), frequently posing rhetorical questions to demand accountability.
2025-05-19
15th Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The style is formal and critical, yet courteous, addressing the minister respectfully while posing questions. It employs logical appeals, drawing on lessons learned from previous crises (the coronavirus) and the experiences of ordinary citizens. The emotional appeal centers on the potential loss of trust among Defence League members who contribute significantly to national defense. Concrete examples (Rõngu Mahla, cloudberry jam) are utilized to illustrate the arguments.
2025-05-14
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The style is provocative and ironic, intervening in the debate to prevent it from turning "stupid." The speaker employs rhetorical exaggeration and sarcasm (referencing "transgender admirals") and positions themselves as morally superior, speaking on behalf of "reasonable people."
2025-05-14
15th Riigikogu, fifth sitting, information briefing.
The style is sharp, accusatory, and forceful, focusing on the "unacceptable" delays by the Ministry of Defense. Sports metaphors are employed (yellow and red cards), and specific timeframes (six months, 133 days, a year and a half) are repeatedly stressed to underscore the critical nature of the situation. The objective is to secure the minister's dismissal through emotional appeal.
2025-05-05
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The tone is predominantly critical and demanding, especially concerning the government's reforms, where accusatory language is employed ("in the interests of sponsors"). In his argumentation, he relies both on research and facts (results of platform work) and on emotional appeal (the indignation of Hiiumaa residents). The style is formal, yet it includes personal examples (two homes, staying on Hiiumaa) used to test ideas on the minister.
2025-04-09
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The style is formal, analytical, and concerned, emphasizing the logical connection between the legislative framework (on paper) and the actual executive authority (in practice). The tone is critical of the government's inaction, but respectful of the work carried out by the Riigikogu. Comparisons (such as Ukraine) are utilized, and the reality of the risk is stressed to create a sense of urgency.
2025-03-17
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is serious, deeply concerned, and critical, employing sharp phrases like "ugly scandal" to characterize the situation. The address is framed as a formal question directed at the Prime Minister, centering on logical argumentation (that a crisis of confidence demands competent leadership).
2025-03-12
The 15th Riigikogu, fifth sitting, information briefing.
The rhetorical style is formal and direct, but it begins with a personal courtesy ("Dear Kristen!"). The speaker uses powerful quotes from the former prime minister to establish a precedent and highlight the urgency of the matter. The emphasis is on applying logical and factual pressure, demanding a specific yes/no answer from the prime minister regarding the issuance of repeated instructions.
2025-02-12
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is explanatory, factual, and emphasizes the seriousness of the problem and the urgency of the solution, referencing repeated incidents and community fear. The speaker utilizes extensive statistical data and logical arguments to justify the necessity of the bill and answer detailed questions. The tone is generally constructive and seeks cross-party support.
2025-02-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, critical, and direct, especially when directed at the Foreign Minister and the major Western powers. The speaker balances historical and logical arguments (the keys to success in the 1990s) with powerful emotional attacks, labeling the Foreign Minister's actions as "petty" and "profoundly inappropriate." He employs strong metaphors ("sycophants," "pennant," and "tie pin") and poses rhetorical questions.
2025-01-21
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The style starts out formal and conciliatory, thanking the opponent for the substantive discussion, but it quickly turns sharp and accusatory, employing a historical counter-attack (a "ping-pong game"). The tone is serious and logical, relying on facts and rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the opponent's past actions and statements. The speaker also requests extra time due to the significance of the subject matter.
2024-12-04
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
The style is predominantly confrontational and accusatory, especially directed at the opposition, who are referred to as "a noisy troll" and "shouters." Both logical arguments are employed (the importance of JEF for security) and strong emotional appeals, accusing opponents of acting against Estonian interests and echoing Kremlin narratives. The speaker repeatedly demands that the session chair ensure order, criticizing their inability to perform this duty.
2024-11-20
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly combative, sharply critical, and directly confrontational, utilizing strong expressions such as "it's not even fit under a cat's tail" and accusing opponents of pursuing the path of "legal nihilism." The speaker employs both logical argumentation (referencing explanatory memorandums and election platforms) and emotional appeals (the question of "manliness"). He uses political anecdotes (the changing of Tallinn's election rules) to discredit his opponents.
2024-11-13
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session.
The style is initially formal and procedural, focusing on detailed reporting of the commission's work, including the reasoned rejection of proposed amendments. In the political rhetoric, the tone shifts to critical and slightly sarcastic, faulting the opposition for their minimal contribution to economic development and their focus on trivial details (the "gun cabinet vs. nightstand" issue). Appeals to logic are employed, stressing the economic advantages of deregulation.
2024-10-23
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, critical, and demanding, particularly directed at the presiding officer of the session. The speaker uses sharp expressions like "you're talking nonsense here" and labels the ringing of the bell as "pathetic." The appeals are primarily logical, grounded in the law concerning internal and working procedure, but they are delivered in an emotionally charged and ultimatum-like tone, ultimately escalating into a personal attack on the chair's competence.
2024-10-16
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is insistent, serious, and highly confrontational, especially towards the Minister of Finance and the opposition. Sharp accusations of populism, lying, and "sharp practice" (or "trickery") are used, and provocative rhetorical questions are posed regarding peacetime in Europe. The speaker emphasizes the existential nature of the topic, utilizing both logical arguments (numbers) and an emotional warning (a reference to the film "Names in Marble 2").
2024-09-25
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
The style is at times sharp and combative, accusing the opposition of populism, dishonesty, and shirking their duties. It employs both logical arguments (procedural details, the substance of legislative changes) and emotional appeals, stressing the importance of protecting the life and health of the Estonian people. The overall tone is formal yet passionate, particularly when criticizing opponents and urging them to engage in substantive work.
2024-09-24
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary sitting
The style of speech is formal, procedural, and informative, characteristic of a commission rapporteur addressing the Riigikogu (Parliament). Emphasis is placed on logical argumentation and facts (referencing commission sessions and the consensus decision), while avoiding emotional appeals. The tone is businesslike, and a serious review of the proposed amendments is assured.
2024-09-11
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fourth session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is serious, pressing, and analytical, focusing on logical arguments and geopolitical threat analysis. Formal language and historical comparisons (such as Cold War-era spending) are used to underscore the gravity of the situation. The speaker presents their views in a structured manner, moving sequentially from defense expenditures to the geopolitical threat, financing, and concluding with institutional criticism.
2024-07-29
15th Riigikogu, Riigikogu extraordinary session.
The rhetorical style is extremely aggressive and confrontational, employing strong emotional language (such as labeling events a "complete farce") and direct accusations of dishonesty. It heavily utilizes rhetorical questions ("Where were their values then?") and references to past scandals specifically to discredit opponents. While the tone is formally interrogative, it is fundamentally accusatory and aggressive in substance.
2024-06-12
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is predominantly formal, analytical, and principle-driven, focusing on finding balanced solutions. The speaker employs both personal commendation (congratulating the vice-chairman for an outstanding result) and strong moral criticism directed at the previous government's actions, labeling them "shameful" and "undignified." The argumentation is logic-based, stressing that the majority of people occupy various roles within traffic.
2024-06-04
15th Riigikogu, third session, plenary sitting
The style is formal, measured, and procedural, focusing on logical arguments and the correctness of the procedure. Repeated acknowledgment is utilized (the Prime Minister's leadership, the committee's sound selection), establishing a conciliatory and supportive tone. We are urged not to draw premature conclusions, but rather to weigh the arguments and await the outcome of the discussion.
2024-06-03
Fifteenth Riigikogu, third session, plenary sitting.
The style is initially conciliatory and appreciative ("I sincerely acknowledge"), but subsequently shifts to critically analytical regarding the proposed solution. Strong figurative language is employed (the metaphor of lifting four tons of sand with a teaspoon) to emphasize the ineffectiveness of the opponent's draft bill. Irony is used at the conclusion, referencing the opposing side's reliance on the government's capacity for global problem-solving.
2024-05-29
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The style is analytical, logical, and detailed, grounded in the extensive presentation of legislative examples and research. The speaker is forthright and employs ironic humor to underscore the lack of correlation between competence and age ("unfortunately, idiots are everywhere and at every age"). The address is aimed directly at the other debate participants (Urmas Reinsalu, Jaak Valge) and is generally rational.
2024-05-15
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The tone is persuasive, encouraging, and decisive, urging colleagues toward a courageous vote. He uses colloquial metaphors ("poking the bear," "quiet as little angels") to simplify and ridicule counterarguments. The style is balanced, combining logical security analysis with an emotional call to action.
2024-05-06
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
The style is formal, but it incorporates irony and sarcasm, particularly regarding the competence of ministers, where it contrasts a competent minister with an "ignoramus." The tone is casually dismissive towards the opposition, stressing that their arguments lack credibility and are merely part of an election campaign.
2024-02-13
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is serious, analytical, and pressing, highlighting the complexity of the world and the escalation of threats. Historical references (9/11, Lennart Meri) and vivid metaphors (Sweden as a "lost suitcase") are employed to underscore the criticality of the situation. Logical arguments concerning defense spending and economic capacity balance emotional appeals against European inaction.
2024-02-07
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is formal and polite in its addresses (e.g., "Honorable Speaker/Deputy Speaker of the Riigikogu"), yet its content is challenging and demanding. The speaker employs rhetorical questions to test the presenter's knowledge and preparation, implying that, given the presenter's background (a former Minister of Finance), they should be familiar with the topic down to the finest details.