By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, respectfully addressing the session chair and the presenter. The speaker employs a logical appeal, posing a specific question regarding the implementation of the law and the execution of the budget. The tone is businesslike and focuses on clarifying political and financial possibilities.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and pessimistic, employing strong negative language and name-calling (e.g., "green madness," "the ignoramuses"). The speaker stresses the logical consequences (a decline in food security and regional stability), but concludes with the emotional assertion that the negotiations are "one big sham." The tone is cautionary and deeply concerned.

The rhetorical style is predominantly inquisitive and critical, posing sharp, skeptical questions to ministers and rapporteurs. The tone is accusatory, particularly concerning planning issues, where he/she directly references the interests of lobbyists and the opposing side (the Social Democrats) wanting to restrict public debate. Both logical arguments (budgetary accounting) and emotional appeals (democratic participation) are employed.

The style is formal and respectful, addressing both the chair of the session and the minister. The rhetoric is primarily logical and substantive, focusing on posing technical questions regarding the details of the budget. A brief, self-deprecating comparison is used involving another politician (Ernits) to highlight the sheer volume of the budget documents.