By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The rhetorical style is analytical and procedurally focused, employing formal address when speaking to the chair and the presenter. The tone is critical of the Social Democrats and the coalition, concentrating on logical arguments and procedural failures. The speaker poses questions that challenge the opposing side's rhetoric and procedural decisions.

The style is formal and critical, focusing on logical arguments concerning the inefficiency of the administrative structure. The characterizing term "mammoth agency" (mammutamet) is used to describe the new authority. In the second address, the tone is direct and procedural, demanding an explanation from the session chairman regarding the voting results and the dissenters.

The tone is critical, but occasionally appreciative, praising the chairman of the Finance Committee for providing substantive answers. He uses strong and memorable phrases ("budget of tax hikes," "financing of green madness") and emphasizes the government's alleged misstatements (such as linking the car tax to support for people with disabilities). He appeals both to logic (the list of taxes) and to emotions (the deterioration of living standards in rural areas).

The rhetorical style is interrogative and combative, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the government's motives ("Is this intended to shut down Estonian industry?"). The tone is critical and grounded in logic, emphasizing the protection of citizens' rights and prioritizing substantive quality over trivial time savings. In addition to those present in the hall, the speaker addresses "the people behind the screens," thereby expanding their audience.

The rhetorical style is persuasive and at times confrontational, directly addressing both the audience in the hall and the wider public ("Good people who are watching us via the internet"). A stark contrast is drawn between the opposition to the coalition and the positive effects of the draft bill, accusing opponents of hypocrisy for demanding impact assessments. The tone is passionate and includes rhetorical questions (for example, regarding a three-day work week).

The style is formal, direct, and demanding, focusing on the repeated asking of questions and the requirement of specific justifications in both economic and foreign policy matters. Rhetorical questions are employed to cast doubt on the rationality and consistency of the coalition's standpoints.

The rhetorical style is formal and direct, using questions to scrutinize government accountability. The tone is critical yet courteous, and the emphasis is on logical argumentation and the demand for specific financial data. Procedural issues are also noted (the absence of the report on paper).

The speech is predominantly critical and concerned, employing strong language such as "nonsense" and "hocus-pocus" to characterize the government's actions. The speaker utilizes both logical arguments (job losses of 5,000 versus 1,000) and emotional appeals (security, villages being left deserted). The style is formal and detailed, addressing the ministers directly and posing specific questions regarding the technical nuances of the draft legislation.