By Months: Maris Lauri
Total Months: 13
Fully Profiled: 13
10.2025
7 Speeches
The style is formal, structured, and analytical, employing a logical framework to present four groups of competitive advantages. The tone expresses concern regarding global instability and past mistakes, but remains rational and instructive concerning domestic solutions. It utilizes both logical argumentation and a moderate emotional appeal, for instance, by criticizing the NIMBY/BANANA attitude and the inherent tendency toward laziness in people.
09.2025
19 Speeches
The style is predominantly formal, analytical, and expert, especially in commission reports. It uses explanatory metaphors (doctor, bloodstream) and emphasizes logical arguments. Although mostly neutral and procedural, the tone becomes sharp and defensive when legislative procedures are criticized or when a colleague presents a false claim ("you are talking nonsense").
06.2025
40 Speeches
The style is predominantly formal, procedural, and detailed, focusing on the neutral reporting of explanatory notes and committee discussions, as the individual acts as the committee's representative. In argumentation, he/she relies heavily on logical and procedural appeals, referencing specific numbers and legal provisions. When responding to the opposition, he/she is at times sharp, criticizing the length and lack of clarity of their questions, as well as their failure to participate in the committee's work.
05.2025
6 Speeches
The rhetorical style is dual: as a representative of the commission, it is formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on conveying facts and voting results. In partisan debate, however, the style becomes very combative, ideological, and sharp, using strong expressions to criticize opponents, such as criticizing Isamaa's "monstrous progressive income tax." Appeals are both logical (avoiding the budget deficit) and emotional (security needs).
03.2025
2 Speeches
The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and cautious, emphasizing logic and a measured approach rather than relying on emotions. The speaker employs contrasts (a hot heart and a cool head) to describe the decision-making process and attempts to persuade colleagues of the need to await the official threat assessment. One brief interjection served to defend against personal slander, indicating a sensitivity to personal attacks.
01.2025
9 Speeches
The speaker's style is predominantly confrontational, critical, and direct, employing strong language (for example, labeling the draft bill "crap" and "utterly unacceptable"). He primarily relies on logical and procedural arguments, accusing the opposition of demagoguery and ignorance. Beyond the substantive debate, he also intervenes regarding the session chair's actions, requesting clarification on procedural rules (specifically, the right to reply).
12.2024
29 Speeches
The style is largely formal and technical, concentrating on the specifics and procedure of legislative bills, yet it turns sharp and combative when responding to the opposition. The discourse employs both logical arguments (financial discipline) and moral and patriotic appeals (the significance of security, avoiding scare tactics). The speaker is blunt, leveling accusations of demagoguery and disrespect against the adversaries.
11.2024
14 Speeches
The style is predominantly formal, analytical, and procedural, particularly when presenting summaries of the committee’s work. When criticizing the opposition, the tone shifts to sharp and accusatory, faulting them for their lack of familiarity with the draft bill, demagoguery, and hypocrisy. The speaker stresses logical argumentation, reliance on facts, and strict adherence to legislative rules.
10.2024
8 Speeches
The rhetorical style is twofold: official and procedural when presenting commission overviews, but passionate and combative in political debates. It employs strong moral and emotional appeals (e.g., statesmanship, unity), while criticizing opponents for demagoguery, foolishness, and hypocrisy.
09.2024
2 Speeches
The style is twofold: in one speech, it is formal, procedural, and detailed, while the other is philosophical, cautionary, and passionate, emphasizing responsibility and balance. The speaker uses logical appeals, simultaneously criticizing the emotional and destructive rhetoric (populism, ranting) present in the Riigikogu. He thanks the Chancellor of Justice for championing a passionate and clear Estonian language, linking clear words with clear thinking.
06.2024
2 Speeches
The rhetorical style is predominantly serious and urgent, especially in the speech concerning the budget, where warnings are issued about the nation's finances "going down the toilet" and the threat of impoverishment. He employs sharp criticism, accusing opponents of demagoguery, foolishness, and incompetence, and expresses pessimism regarding finding common ground ("But unfortunately, I don't believe in that"). The style is formal, yet it contains strong moral appeals for responsibility and honesty.
05.2024
12 Speeches
The style is formal, logical, and pressing, utilizing powerful metaphors ("fire," "debt vortex") to underscore the gravity of the financial crisis. It combines a detailed procedural presentation (as a commission representative) with direct calls for accountability, criticizing political cowardice, laziness, and "preening" (self-congratulation). It appeals to wisdom and responsibility, emphasizing that the wise learn from the mistakes of others.
04.2024
1 Speeches
The rhetorical style is formal, procedural, and informative, aimed at objectively conveying the discussions and decisions of the Finance Committee. The discourse is logic-based, avoiding emotional appeals and focusing instead on facts and regulatory details. The tone is neutral and explanatory, addressing doubts that were raised previously.