By Plenary Sessions: Signe Kivi
Total Sessions: 6
Fully Profiled: 6
2024-11-21
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal and respectful, addressing the esteemed Chair and the rapporteur. The speaker favors a logical and analytical approach, posing questions that highlight procedural shortcomings and conflicts between economic and climate objectives.
2024-11-20
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The style is highly formal and respectful, courteously addressing both the chairperson and the rapporteur. The tone is analytical and inquisitive, including appreciation for the rapporteur's work and underscoring the reverence felt toward the constitution. The appeal is predominantly logical, focusing on the precise definition of the specific problem.
2024-11-12
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, courteous, and procedure-oriented, addressing the presenter and the chairperson respectfully. The discourse is logical and inquisitive, focusing on taking into account background information and prior experience within the committee's work.
2024-11-11
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal and respectful, posing an analytical question to the presenter. The speaker's tone is serious and matter-of-fact, focusing on a logical argument intended to expand the topic’s scope from a medical and financing focus to social responsibility.
2024-11-07
15th Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is respectful, constructive, and advisory, addressing the esteemed Chairman and the Rapporteur. Logical argumentation is employed, emphasizing the rational utilization of existing structures and their inherent potential. The address concludes with a specific and clear proposal to refer the matter to the BA Economic Committee.
2024-11-06
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The style is formal and respectful, addressing the esteemed Chairman and the presenter. The speech is analytical, utilizing a historical comparison (the 2000 budget) to underscore the value of the current material, and posing clear, specific procedural questions. The appeal is logical and focuses on improving the format in which the budget is presented.