By Plenary Sessions: Aivar Kokk

He/She employs emotional rhetoric, sometimes tinged with irony, introducing historical comparisons (Kalevipoeg, Stone Age people) and examples from everyday life. The speaker stresses a practical approach, urging colleagues to "get out of Tallinn" and see the reality of rural life. He/She uses direct questions and specific examples to illustrate their positions, demonstrating a populist rather than a technocratic approach.

He/She employs a direct and confrontational approach, especially when dealing with government representatives. The style is fact-based, relying on concrete examples and numerical data. The rhetoric is pragmatic, focusing on solving practical problems, and also includes personal references ("I can explain this to you separately for fifteen minutes").

He employs a direct and emotional approach, combining personal experiences ("I have also been a much heavier guy") with fact-based arguments. His rhetoric is often confrontational toward the current government, yet constructive when it comes to offering solutions. He uses a colloquial style and practical examples to make his message more accessible.

It employs a direct and critical tone, especially concerning Elering and government policy. The rhetoric is fact-based, relying on specific figures and examples, but it also includes emotional phrases like "what kind of nonsense is this?" and "they are taking money right out of our pockets." It uses comparisons with the experiences of other countries to reinforce its arguments.

Employs fact-rich and data-driven argumentation, combining it with emotional appeals ("from our pocket," "makes your life harder"). The rhetoric is direct and critical, but stays within the bounds of civility. Comparisons to other projects (Balticconnector, Paldiski LNG) are repeatedly used to highlight the absurdity of the situation. It concludes with concrete proposals and requests directed to the Prime Minister.

The speaker employs direct, confrontational, and emotional rhetoric. They often open with phrases like "let's be honest" and "believe it or not," utilizing rhetorical questions and irony. They rely on both factual evidence and emotional appeals, sharply criticizing the opposition and demanding accountability.