By Plenary Sessions: Mart Maastik

The speaker's style is unusually poetic and satirical, utilizing a Christmas-themed poem to convey political criticism. The tone is critical regarding the government's actions, but this is softened by humor and an appeal to Santa Claus. The speech employs emotional appeals ("Christmas peace, tax peace") and ironic fabrications of new taxes.

The rhetorical style is critical, questioning, and at times ironic, employing logical argumentation (the mathematics of costs and consumption) blended with memorable comparisons and anecdotes (the chicken/egg dilemma, flying crocodiles) to ridicule the government's justifications. Emphasis is placed on the necessity of thinking primarily about the people, and direct questions are posed to the minister regarding their lack of a comprehensive overview.

The rhetorical style is critical and ironic, employing sarcasm (with references to influencers and masseuses) to cast doubt on the minister's priorities. Although the speech is formal, it uses colloquial terms criticizing the government's actions ("sowing commissioners"). The appeal is primarily logical, focusing on cost-benefit analysis.

The rhetorical style is critical and polemical, emphasizing the plight of entrepreneurs and condemning the government's stubborn attitude. Figurative expressions and analogies are used ("Brezhnev package," "half an egg as an empty shell") to describe the irrationality of the legislative process. The tone is rather emotional and politically charged, although the argumentation relies on economic logic.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, often employing an entrepreneurial perspective to evaluate the costs of bureaucracy. The tone is critical and questioning, particularly concerning the accountability of state-owned enterprise managers and the quality of economic decisions. It utilizes both logical arguments (such as the bureaucracy involved in collecting expense documentation) and emotional appeals urging voters to exercise better judgment in elections.

The rhetorical style is passionate, critical, and direct, employing both logical arguments (data, KTK proposals) and emotional appeals in support of entrepreneurs. The tone is sharp toward opponents, fiercely criticizing the imposition of "one person's" will and using metaphors like "death and taxes" to describe the economic situation.

The rhetorical style is critical, sharp, and penetrating, employing strong expressions (e.g., "bombshell," "we will ultimately die out"). The speaker relies on a logical argument, using the Ericsson example to prove the lack of competitiveness. He poses direct and accusatory questions to the government, demanding accountability and a grasp of the situation.

The rhetorical style is formal (addressing the Chairman and the Rapporteur) but simultaneously critical and provocative, particularly when discussing the evaluation of the deputies’ work. The speaker uses both hypothetical examples (the ATV) and personal anecdotes (his daughter’s electric bicycle) to illustrate the arguments and highlight the deficiencies in the current legislation. In the third speech, the tone is reformist and demanding, proposing radical solutions for improving parliamentary discipline.

The rhetorical style is confrontational and interrogative, presenting the minister with sharp questions regarding the proportionality of costs and the shift in political stances. The speaker frequently employs rhetorical questions to highlight the illogic or unfairness of the government's priorities (e.g., insurance for stay-at-home mothers versus sex reassignment surgeries). The tone is formal, but it contains strong value judgments.

The rhetoric is combative, serious, and accusatory, stressing the government's incompetence and the misplacement of priorities. Logical appeals are employed, highlighting the prime minister's previous quotes and the contradictions they present when compared to the warnings issued by the Defense Forces leadership. Finally, the tone becomes extremely direct, questioning the government's true motives (EU funding and partisan support) and demanding that the evidence be properly considered.

The rhetorical style is serious and alarming, stressing the urgency of ensuring children's safety, which is driven by an "obvious concern." Direct questions are employed to clarify procedural gaps, and the tone, while formal (addressing the presiding officer and colleagues), is emotionally charged, referencing a personal concern for the children.

The rhetorical style is critical and insistent, expressing concern about the future ("what scares me more is what will happen in the future"). Both logical arguments (financial data, comparison of neighboring countries) and strongly emotionally charged expressions ("debt bondage," "self-deception") are used. Although the speaker accuses the government of failing to listen to the opposition, he nevertheless concludes on a hopeful note directed toward the Ministry of Economic Affairs.