By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The rhetorical style is formal and direct, posing pointed and clarifying questions to the Minister of the Interior. The tone is one of concern, highlighting the existence of logical arguments and regulatory loopholes, thereby referencing the risk of system abuse. The language employed is policy-focused and technical, deliberately avoiding emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is critical and combative, particularly concerning the government's priorities, employing powerful rhetorical questions ("Is the rest of the world... really that stupid?"). Both logical arguments (budget versus subsistence) and emotional appeals are utilized, directly linking food availability to patriotism.

The rhetorical style is critical and analytical, grounded in logical arguments and focused on exposing the flaws of the draft legislation. Specific and vivid examples are employed (such as black-and-yellow striped tape or ladder instruction manuals) to illustrate the extent of bureaucracy and the severity of disproportionate penalties. The tone is concerned and cautionary, emphasizing the worsening situation facing manufacturers.

The rhetorical style is critical, interrogative, and demanding, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions to challenge the actions of the coalition and the commission. The tone is one of concern and demands accountability, emphasizing procedural inconsistencies and a lack of transparency, while accusing that the procedure is being made "even darker."

The speech is urgent in tone, critical, and emotionally charged, especially regarding regional security issues, using expressions like "for heaven's sake" and "pure surrender." The criticism is aimed at the short-sightedness of the minister and the government, who look only at the Excel spreadsheet, as if "wearing blinders." Logical arguments (the consolidation of institutions, the Bornhöhe tradition) are interwoven with emotional appeals concerning people's safety and the continuity of the state.