By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The rhetorical style is critical and at times sharp, combining logical argumentation (questioning the logic behind costs and revenues) with emotional appeals focused on protecting citizens' wallets. Formal language is employed, but direct attacks are launched against the legislative procedure and the preparation of the rapporteurs, describing the situation as "embarrassing" and "a new level."

The style is confrontational and critical, particularly towards the Prime Minister, whose responses are characterized as unrealistically optimistic ("Estonia is like one big flower garden"). Strong rhetorical questions are employed to highlight the injustice and lack of transparency in the government's actions. The tone is formal, but sharply adversarial in content.

The rhetorical style is highly combative and critical, accusing the government of lying and breaking its promises. It utilizes both emotional appeals (such as the situation in rural areas and the expropriation of property) and procedural and technical arguments (including errors in the explanatory memorandum and the drafting of amendments). The speaker urges members of parliament to vote against the car tax and to support the Estonian Conservative People's Party in the European Parliament elections.

The rhetorical style is formal, demanding, and consistently skeptical, especially concerning the answers provided by the respondent. The speaker employs procedural criticism (the lack of information regarding the prime minister's whereabouts) as an introduction to the substantive issue. He emphasizes the potential impact of secret discussions on global changes, referencing "new world order" theories.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and accusatory, emphasizing the unjust and unfair nature of the government's actions toward pensioners. Emotional appeals are employed (impoverishment, broken promises, "the cherry on top"), concluding with a direct political call to vote against the ruling coalition in the European Parliament elections. The tone is formal, but the content is sharply adversarial.

The rhetorical style is combative and accusatory, commencing with a sharp refutation of the minister's rosy depiction ("life is like a flower"). Powerful rhetorical questions are employed to underscore ethical failings and pressure the minister to acknowledge the necessity of resignation. The tone is formal, yet the substance is sharp and critical.