By Plenary Sessions: Maris Lauri
Total Sessions: 31
Fully Profiled: 31
2025-10-13
15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is divided into two parts: initially formal and procedural (in the role of the committee rapporteur), and subsequently, it becomes sharp and didactic. Logical and technical appeals are employed to refute the opponents' "peculiar positions." The tone is occasionally condescending, suggesting that colleagues should read the drafts more thoroughly and seek assistance if needed, in order to achieve greater competence.
2025-10-09
15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The style is formal, structured, and analytical, focusing on logical arguments and economic truths. The tone is generally rational, but it includes a warning regarding global instability and criticism directed at foolish political decisions (such as the dismantling of the pension pillar). It employs economic concepts to explain inevitable processes, like the convergence of wage levels.
2025-09-17
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting.
The style is predominantly formal and procedural, as the speaker acts as a representative of the commission, avoiding the expression of personal viewpoints. However, the tone becomes defensive and sharp in response to colleagues’ accusations ("you’re talking rubbish"), emphasizing that disagreements are a natural part of the legislative process. The arguments are primarily logical and fact-based, relying on commission decisions and legal interpretations.
2025-09-16
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
The style is initially corrective and procedural, addressing a colleague's procedural error. The tone then shifts to questioning and inclusive, posing a specific question about the focus areas for the subsequent procedure. The communication is formal and focuses on logical facts.
2025-09-11
15th Riigikogu, 6th plenary sitting
The style is formal and analytical, while simultaneously employing colorful historical descriptions ("a colorful start," "stupid mistakes were made, wrongdoings were committed"). The tone is concerned regarding systemic risks and financial fraud, but ultimately optimistic about the system's improvement. Logical appeals and parallels are utilized (doctor, circulatory system), and the head of the Financial Supervision Authority is addressed respectfully.
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly formal, neutral, and procedural, serving as the purely informative transmission of the Finance Committee's discussions and decisions. Logical appeals and neutral reporting are utilized, while avoiding emotional expressions or personal viewpoints.
2025-06-17
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The style is highly factual, formal, and detailed, concentrating on clarifying the substance of the draft bill and the procedural process. The speaker remains patient and repetitive in addressing the opposition's recurring questions. Furthermore, the speaker employs logical arguments and technical language to alleviate concerns regarding the creation of a "super database" and the profiling of private individuals. He repeatedly emphasizes that all future decisions will continue to be made by a human, not a machine.
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The speaker's style is formal, procedural, and fact-based, especially as a committee representative, focusing on the details of the bill’s procedure and relevant legislation. In personal remarks, the tone shifts to be more ideological, yet remains analytical and reliant on figures, while simultaneously acknowledging opponents (the Social Democrats) for their honesty. He/She uses a sharp but brief remark directed at the opposition, referring to "long, drawn-out questions."
2025-06-10
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and interrogative, directed straight to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. A logical appeal is utilized, presenting a complex legal dilemma and emphasizing a potential constitutional challenge.
2025-05-20
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The style varies significantly: A and B employ an official, neutral, and procedural reporting style, focusing on a concise overview of the committee’s work. C, in contrast, is highly combative and ideological, using sharp judgments ("perverse progressive income tax," "speaks hypocritically") and contrasting its positions with the worldviews of other political parties. C expresses disappointment regarding the substance of the debate but emphasizes its party’s majority and right-wing values.
2025-05-14
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is extremely formal, neutral, and fact-based, focusing exclusively on communicating the commission's work process and voting results. The speaker employs a logical structure and official language, avoiding emotional or personal judgments, and confining themselves to the numerical presentation of decisions and voting outcomes.
2025-05-07
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The tone is formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on accurately conveying the content and decisions of the Finance Committee meeting. Logical argumentation and fact-based reporting are employed, while emotional appeals are avoided, in order to ensure an objective overview of the committee's work.
2025-03-20
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is predominantly formal, analytical, and cautious, balancing emotional understanding ("a hot heart") with a logical approach ("a cold head"). The speaker presents their viewpoints argumentatively, drawing comparisons with the practices of neighboring countries and emphasizing the necessity of data-driven decision-making. In the second brief statement, the tone is defensive and procedural, related to an accusation of defamation.
2025-01-16
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly aggressive and critical, particularly regarding the quality of the opponents' bill, utilizing strong and unconventional phrases such as "crap" and "below any standard." The speaker relies on logical and procedural arguments, emphasizing the need for substantive debate, yet delivers this passionately and confidently. They also engage in procedural disputes with the presiding officer, defending their right to express a strong personal opinion about the draft legislation.
2024-12-17
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, particularly when characterizing the opponents' draft bill as a "botch" and accusing them of demagoguery. Logical and fact-based arguments are employed, referencing the history of legislative amendments, committee discussions, and procedural details to demonstrate the lack of consideration in the opponents' proposal. The tone remains formal, yet becomes emotionally charged when criticizing the opponents' motives.
2024-12-11
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The style is predominantly argumentative, defensive, and at times sharply aggressive, especially towards the opposition, who are accused of spreading lies and sowing panic. Strong moral appeals are employed (conscience, feeding the enemy) alongside pointed metaphors (crocodile tears, playing the fool). The speaker attempts to balance these emotional accusations with logical arguments concerning the inevitability of tax increases and fiscal responsibility.
2024-12-04
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
The style is initially formal and detailed (during the committee presentation), but it shifts to become sharp and occasionally personal during the Q&A session, particularly when addressing criticism and interruptions from Isamaa. It employs both logical economic-theoretical arguments (such as loans, revenues versus costs) and emotional appeals (the importance of security, avoiding fear-mongering, and belief). Frustration is repeatedly voiced regarding the background noise in the chamber and the opponents' lack of respect.
2024-11-13
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session.
The style is predominantly formal and analytical, focusing on details and procedural rules. It employs strong logical arguments, but becomes sharp and combative towards the end, accusing the opposition of ignorance regarding the draft bill, hypocrisy, and demagoguery. It criticizes "baroque speeches" and emphasizes that it only speaks when fully informed on the subject.
2024-11-06
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The style is analytical, formal, and critical, yet it concludes with a call for cooperation. The speaker relies on logical arguments and structured analysis, evaluating the budget system five years after its implementation. To enhance credibility, he/she uses self-referencing (extensive experience on the finance committee, having reviewed all budgets) and agrees with the assessments made by the National Audit Office.
2024-10-23
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
The style is argumentative, critical, and occasionally defensive, accusing opponents of hypocrisy, boorish behavior, and outright lying. The speaker employs both logical arguments (such as procedural errors) and personal examples (including insults) to underscore the adversaries' lack of integrity. The text concludes with a straightforward recommendation for the opposition to focus on substantive work.
2024-10-16
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The style is dual: formal and detailed in reports on the commission's work, yet it shifts to being sharp and passionate when expressing political viewpoints. It employs strong criticism directed at opponents, accusing them of pursuing short-term political gains, engaging in demagoguery, and "playing the fool." The conclusion strongly stresses the necessity of statesmanship and unity within the context of international security, utilizing an emotional appeal ("nobody loves us").
2024-09-17
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is serious, cautionary, and moralizing, stressing the responsibility of the Riigikogu members to take a broader and longer-term view of matters. Strong value concepts are employed (such as the absence of freedom and irresponsibility), and there is a direct warning against causing harm to future generations. The speech is formal and appeals to logic and the necessity of restoring the capacity for discussion.
2024-09-11
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fourth session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, detailed, and procedural, typical of a committee rapporteur. The speaker employs logical argumentation to justify the course of procedure and the proposed amendments, focusing on facts and decisions reached by consensus. The tone is neutral, but includes a brief apology and correction regarding a technical error found in the draft materials.
2024-06-13
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Third Session, Plenary Session
The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and moderately time-sensitive, particularly regarding the unacceptable delays in finding solutions. Logical appeals and metaphors (the financial system as the circulatory system) are employed to underscore the system's vital importance. The tone is balanced, emphasizing the necessity of rapid error correction, rather than the creation of a system that is ideal but ultimately cumbersome.
2024-06-10
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The tone is extremely critical and urgent, warning of the collapse of state finances ("going down the drain") and citing negative examples from other European Union countries. The speaker employs logical arguments regarding the necessity of fiscal discipline, but simultaneously expresses deep frustration with colleagues' demagoguery, foolishness, and incompetence. The style is formal, yet it includes sharp accusations of irresponsibility and posturing.
2024-05-30
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary sitting
The speaker's style is insistent, cautionary, and at times confrontational, employing powerful metaphors such as "debt spiral" and "conflagration." They utilize both logical arguments (rising interest rates, economic instability) and moral appeals to responsibility and wisdom, including the adage, "The wise learn from the mistakes of others." Historical examples (Greece, Sweden, Finland) are used with a cautionary tone to underscore the gravity of the situation.
2024-05-29
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The style is predominantly formal, factual, and rich in detail, focusing on the technical presentation of the draft bill's procedure and the justification for the proposed amendments. It employs logical appeals and fact-based arguments (e.g., concerning cost and time expenditure) to justify the committee's decisions. In the third address, the tone shifts to corrective and defensive, aiming to counter the opposing side's "biased viewpoint" and emphasize the high level of risks.
2024-05-16
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Third Session, Plenary Session
The speaker's rhetorical style is analytical, formal, and insistent, particularly when addressing state finance and permit processing ("absolutely necessary without delay"). Logical arguments are employed, linking the state's uncertainty to corporate investment decisions and interest rates. The tone is predominantly critical of systemic issues (bureaucracy, competition), but positive and appreciative regarding the innovativeness of entrepreneurs.
2024-05-15
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly formal, businesslike, and procedure-driven, particularly in the context of a commission report. A neutral and objective tone is employed, focusing on facts and legislative measures. Appeals are purely logical and aimed at conveying information, strictly avoiding emotional or personal judgments.
2024-05-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session.
The style varies from neutral and procedural reporting (the commission's work) to an urgent and critical tone, utilizing strong metaphors (the budget "fire"). The criticism is straightforward, demanding accountability and swift action, accusing politicians of "preening" and "grandstanding" instead of taking action. The appeals are primarily logical and economic, but they are delivered with great intensity.
2024-04-09
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The style is highly formal, neutral, and procedural, which is typical for a Steering Committee report. The speaker concentrates on logical appeals and the fact-based delivery of the content of decisions and discussions, strictly avoiding emotional or personal viewpoints. The presentation is detailed and structured, beginning with the committee's decisions and then moving on to the topics of discussion.