By Plenary Sessions: Ando Kiviberg

The rhetorical style is corrective and argumentative, aimed at refuting inaccurate information disseminated by opponents. The tone is predominantly logical and legalistic, focusing on facts and the necessity of bringing order to the legal framework. Figurative language is also employed, admonishing opponents not to conjure up a bogeyman where not even the scent of one can be detected.

The rhetorical style is passionate, confrontational, and at times ironic, featuring direct addresses and the mocking of opponents. The speaker employs both logical argumentation (competition drives prices down) as well as folksy and emotional language, accusing opponents of pre-election confusion and irrationality. He concludes with an optimistic call to believe and take action.

The speaker’s rhetorical style varies: on matters of national security, it is forceful and at times combative, stressing that the threat must not be overlooked. In commission presentations, however, the tone is extremely formal, detailed, and procedural, relying heavily on legal facts and citations. Overall, the style remains logical and evidence-based, and the speaker also seeks to reassure colleagues during the debate.

The style is formal and analytical, beginning with praise for how informative the presentation was. Direct questions and a strong metaphor ("to stay in the saddle," "bolting") are used to describe the partners' uncertainty. The tone is respectful, but includes criticism regarding inconsistencies within the process.

The speaker's style is predominantly formal, procedural, and informative, focusing on the objective presentation of the Constitutional Committee's discussion and procedural decisions. Logical arguments and fact-based information (the positions of the National Audit Office, constitutional considerations) dominate. In the personal viewpoint, a moderate tone is briefly expressed regarding the necessity of solving an acute problem.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and constructive, starting with praise for the minister's comprehensive presentation and acknowledging the necessity of hearing good news. The appeals are primarily logical, supporting the viewpoints with comparisons and economic arguments, such as equating infrastructure construction with the renovation of apartment buildings. The tone is concerned regarding the problems raised, yet remains goal-oriented, focusing intently on finding solutions.