By Plenary Sessions: Mihkel Lees

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, addressing the Minister respectfully. The tone is analytical, yet conveys a moderate sense of urgency, referencing the need to move forward more quickly and expressing concerns about the adequacy of funding. The speaker uses the emotional term "kripeldama" (a persistent, nagging discomfort) to describe dissatisfaction regarding potential restrictions.

The style is formal, structured, and logical, utilizing a systematic bulleted list (firstly, secondly, thirdly, etc.) to explain the advantages of the draft law. The tone is urgent, emphasizing the need to act immediately, referencing the Polish drone incident, yet remaining analytical and focused on systemic clarity. The speech concludes with the hope that clear foreknowledge of the limitations will increase trust between the state and its citizens.

The style is formal, yet direct and repetitive, emphasizing the faction's unified opposition to the proposals ("do not agree," "cannot agree"). The tone becomes slightly critical and personal when the opposition is accused of being fatigued by dealing with security issues. The appeals are primarily procedural and political, not emotional.

The style is formal and businesslike. S1 employs cautious, legalistic argumentation framed as a question. S2 is primarily a neutral and detailed procedural rapporteur, focusing on facts, voting outcomes, and procedures, adding only a brief personal note regarding the stagnation of the European debate.

The tone of the address is formal, courteous, and inquisitive, respectfully addressing both the Chairman and the Minister. The style is logical and focuses on specific legislative expectations, while posing a forward-looking question.

The speaking style is formal, respectful, and analytical, directed specifically at the manager and the presenter. Logical argumentation is employed, drawing upon statistics and health-related facts to underscore the urgency of the issue. The tone is one of concern, but the objective remains obtaining a consolidated overview of proposed solutions and necessary actions.

The rhetorical style starts out polite and respectful but quickly shifts to analytical and confrontational. The speaker employs logical argumentation, drawing upon scientific sources, yet concludes with a sharp, politically charged attack against opponents, hinting at psychosomatic effects.

The rhetorical style is formal and balanced, combining emotional appeals (referencing tragedy, uncertainty, and complex moments) with logical and detailed financial data. The tone is supportive and persuasive, aimed at increasing confidence and emphasizing the fairness of the new system. Repetitive emphasis is used to stress that this is a "very necessary and fair step."

The address is formal and respectful, utilizing the salutations "Honorable Chair" and "Esteemed Rapporteur." The style is analytical and logical, focusing on procedural efficiency and the specific substance of the issues raised.

The style of address is extremely formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on reporting the details and schedules of the draft bill's proceedings. The arguments are entirely logical and fact-based, referring to specific dates, stakeholder groups, and consensus decisions. Emotional or personal evaluations are absent; the emphasis is on the transmission of information.

The rhetorical style is formal, procedural, and strictly informative, fitting the role of a committee rapporteur. The tone is neutral and objective, focusing on the presentation of facts (who asked, what was answered, what the fees were). Emotional or personal appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on a logical and consensus-based decision-making process.

The rhetorical style is defensive, fact-based, and authoritative, with the goal of refuting the opposition's claims. The speaker employs logical appeals and concrete figures (pension amounts, forecasts) instead of emotional arguments. The tone is formal and condemns the opposition's actions as "scaremongering," while simultaneously addressing the public directly.

The rhetorical style is analytical, calm, and persuasive, focusing on logical arguments and data to justify the necessity of the cuts. The speaker directly addresses potential concerns ("will people be left in the lurch?") and attempts to alleviate anxiety by explaining how the care reform and assistance from local governments (LGUs) will ensure people's ability to cope. The presentation is formal and professional, deliberately avoiding emotional appeals.

The style is formal and procedural, with the speaker addressing the Chair respectfully ("Thank you, esteemed Chairman"). One speaker adopts a defensive tone, stressing that the action is not rash or hasty, but rather a carefully considered endorsement of the faction's proposal.

The speaker's style is extremely formal and respectful, utilizing standard forms of address before the Riigikogu ("esteemed Chairman," "respected colleagues"). The tone is serious and committed, particularly during the swearing-in ceremony, and includes a brief procedural clarification (Chairman/Deputy Chairman).