By Plenary Sessions: Rene Kokk

The speaker's rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, often employing sarcasm and accusing the government of arrogance and treating people as if they are stupid. He balances logical economic arguments (the impact of taxes) with emotional appeals to protect low-wage earners and pensioners. The style is direct, repeatedly stressing that the opposition "said this is how it would go" and referencing "plain common sense."

The rhetorical style is sharp, demanding, and accusatory, emphasizing the seriousness of the event ("really serious questions"). Strong metaphors are used (e.g., "hiding one's head in the sand") and the media is referenced to confirm the government's failure. The goal is to expose the government's incompetence and deny the official narrative, using logical questions to highlight inconsistencies in the answers.

The rhetorical style is critical, direct, and demanding. The speaker employs logical arguments, stressing the burden of the tax hikes and calling for specific administrative actions. He directly accuses the minister of misleading the public regarding the true impact of the taxes.

The rhetoric is sharp, critical, and admonishing, particularly concerning the minister's rude behavior and the disregard shown toward the Riigikogu (Parliament). Strong warnings (the Swedish model, rising crime rates) and rhetorical questions are employed to emphasize the danger inherent in the government's decisions. The appeal is made to logic, citing data provided by experts (KAPO, former officials) and official statistics.

The tone is critical, at times combative and accusatory, utilizing strong phrases such as "absurd situation" and "double standard." The rhetoric relies on both logical arguments (economic competitiveness) and emotional appeals, highlighting striking examples of unfair compensation (40 euros over ten years). Rhetorical questions are frequently employed to cast doubt on the opposing side's grasp of the subject matter.

The rhetorical style is combative, skeptical, and insistent, especially concerning energy policy and political legitimacy. The speaker frequently employs rhetorical questions to challenge the minister's claims and strongly appeal to the public's sense of justice. Government decisions are described using emotionally charged terms such as "wind turbine madness" and "malicious."

The tone is predominantly combative, critical, and insistent, especially directed at the government and officials, calling the proposal a "desperate cry for help." It uses both logical arguments (economic calculations, preventing border trade) and emotional appeals (the sheer repugnance of hypocrisy). It emphasizes the need to look beyond simple Excel spreadsheets and cites real-life examples (e.g., the success of lowering the alcohol excise tax, the hauling of construction materials from Lithuania).

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and incisive, particularly when criticizing the minister's lack of personal political will and condemning the mere recitation of ministry mandates. Emotional appeals and folk wisdom are employed ("if the school goes, the village will gradually go too"), along with negative metaphors ("creeping process," "Excel spreadsheet"). It demands that the minister adopt an approach based on conscience, not merely political logic, while emphasizing the difficulty of the minister's job.