By Plenary Sessions: Leo Kunnas

The style is formal, analytical, and focuses on logical argumentation and procedural correctness. The appeal is aimed at clarity and the assignment of responsibility ("so that everyone in the country knows who is responsible for this"). It employs rhetorical exaggeration (overstatement) to illustrate the importance of the division of functions.

The rhetorical style is extremely formal, concise, and informative. The tone is neutral and strictly businesslike, limited to a standard opening address and a brief introduction of the draft's subject matter. The speaker concludes abruptly with the phrase, "That is all," which signals a clear desire to avoid any argumentation or emotional appeal.

The rhetorical style is extremely formal, concise, and procedural, utilizing standard forms of address ("Esteemed Chairman of the Session! Dear colleagues!"). The tone is neutral and descriptive, avoiding emotional appeals and emphasizing brevity with the phrases "That is all" and "I will not go into further detail."

The tone of the address is serious, businesslike, and urgent, especially regarding defense matters, emphasizing the need for swift decisions ("without delay"). The style is formal and analytical, relying on logical arguments and concrete figures, rather than emotional appeals. On the topic of defense, positions are presented as "military advice" to the Prime Minister, while the migration issue is framed as a direct, data-driven question.

The speaking style is formal and highly concise, especially when presenting legislative drafts. The emphasis is placed on logical and economic argumentation, expressing skepticism regarding the expected revenue from the government's tax hike ("I don't have much faith in it"). Emotional appeals are avoided; the focus remains on facts and economic consequences.

The rhetorical style is formal and direct, addressing the session chair and the presenter respectfully. The question is posed as a logical and simple procedural inquiry, but contains implicit criticism regarding a procedural error. The tone is businesslike and focuses on the facts.