By Plenary Sessions: Tiit Maran
Total Sessions: 52
Fully Profiled: 52
2025-10-15
The 15th Riigikogu, VI Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is analytical, critical, and concerned, emphasizing the shortcomings and crudeness of the draft bill. It utilizes logical arguments and data-driven criticism, referencing the deficiencies in the explanatory memorandum and the composition of the ministry's expert panel. The tone is formal and focuses on substantive and procedural policy critique.
2025-10-15
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Information Hour
The rhetorical style is formal and questioning, beginning with polite thanks and recognition directed at the Prime Minister (a reference to Vladimir Svet). The speaker poses detailed, policy-focused questions, maintaining an analytical and balanced tone, and emphasizing both speed and procedural correctness.
2025-10-13
15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The style is analytical, detailed, and incisive, emphasizing the severity of the climate crisis and the government's inaction. It employs logical arguments and a detailed historical timeline to illustrate the government's failure to uphold its promises. To sharpen the critique, a humorous yet pointed analogy of a project management failure scheme is utilized: (Enthusiasm, Confusion, Search for Scapegoats, Forgetting).
2025-10-08
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is inquisitive and confrontational, heavily employing rhetorical questions to challenge the opposing side's analysis and lack of conviction. The speaker highlights a logical inconsistency ("strange contradiction") and appeals to international comparisons in order to criticize the opposition.
2025-10-06
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, addressing the minister directly ("Dear Minister!"). Logical argumentation is employed, contrasting information obtained from the media with the minister's claims to highlight the discrepancy and demand clarification. The tone is skeptical and demands clarity in the implementation of policy.
2025-09-24
15th Estonian Parliament, 6th sitting, press briefing
The style is sharply critical and suspicious, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the goals and legality of the order. The appeal is logical and procedural, highlighting inconsistencies in the authorities' mandates and the strange circumstances surrounding the order. It uses strong phrases such as "ill-considered and strange proposal" and "puzzling circumstance."
2025-09-22
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The style is critical, questioning, and analytical, making extensive use of rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the government's actions and motives. The arguments are primarily logical and definition-based (e.g., defining society and bureaucracy), emphasizing the need for a holistic view of issues. Strong imagery is employed, comparing bureaucracy to a "cancerous disease" and criticizing the campaign-style approach.
2025-09-17
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, press briefing.
The speaker's tone is critical and concerned, expressing procedural frustration and stressing that the current situation is "unacceptable." A rhetorical question is posed to the Prime Minister to draw attention to the power dynamic between the ministry and the committees, ironically referring to the latter as "talking shops." The appeal is primarily logical and procedural, but carries an emotional charge when highlighting the injustice.
2025-09-16
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
The style is polite and analytical, beginning with praise for the opposing side ("for the excellent presentation"), which establishes a constructive atmosphere. Rhetorical questions and contrast (a comparison with a previous appearance) are employed to provoke substantive debate and control the focus of the opposing side. The speaker's tone is concerned yet balanced, concentrating on logical arguments.
2025-09-15
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting
The tone is critical and demanding, focusing on government accountability and procedural errors. It employs logical and fact-based arguments rooted in court decisions and specific observations (e.g., the reduction of the education focus area within the Ministry of Climate). The style is formal and centers on posing questions, demanding clarification and accountability.
2025-09-08
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The style is formal and direct, posing a challenging question to the minister based on previously published information. The emphasis is on logical argumentation and citing facts (ERR interview, Canadian data). The objective is to achieve specific political and financial clarity.
2025-09-04
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and demanding, emphasizing the need to quickly resolve the resulting confusion and uncertainty (for example, concerning the climate law). The speaker employs logical appeals, relying on procedures (interpellations/inquiries) and official documents (the National Audit Office audit) to demand accountability. The tone is at times concerned, referencing the "great confusion" caused by forest decisions and the threat of dog attacks.
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The speaker's tone is critical and questioning, expressing "bewilderment" regarding the solutions discussed by the commission. The style is logical and focuses on practical shortcomings, utilizing personal experience to substantiate the arguments. The speaker poses direct rhetorical questions concerning the competence of state bodies.
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is serious, analytical, and forceful, particularly when addressing issues of inequality and crises. The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments and data, frequently employing international comparisons (Denmark, the USA, Finland) to substantiate their positions. Furthermore, they use direct value judgments, labeling certain policies as unjust and foolish, and admonish opponents for their excessive self-congratulation.
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, information briefing.
The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and emotional, employing strong moral judgments such as "brutal marauding and looting" and "unprecedented." The speaker balances the emotional appeal with detailed data, but the primary objective is to call into question the opponent's technocratic mindset and values. He repeats the questions insistently, having failed to receive an answer to the initial question.
2025-06-10
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting.
The speaker's style is analytical and engaging, starting with an acknowledgment of how interesting the discussion is. A rhetorical question is used to challenge the opposing side's position, emphasizing the logical argument regarding the necessity of speed and effectiveness in the process when fighting against monopolistic interests.
2025-05-21
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The rhetorical style starts off sarcastic and ironic ("what a lovely, sweet little story"), before shifting to become critical and questioning. The speaker relies on logical arguments, emphasizing procedural flaws and substantive discrepancies (e.g., the 30% versus 1% difference). The tone is sharp and conveys deep dissatisfaction with the quality of the decision-making process.
2025-05-21
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, information briefing.
The rhetorical style is critical and demanding, beginning with the expression of dissatisfaction regarding the answer received ("I cannot be satisfied"). Logical appeals are employed, and complex, three-part questions are posed. The speaker utilizes hypothetical scenarios (for example, turning forest into arable land) to highlight the shortcomings of the draft law and addresses the respondent politely yet sharply ("a clever and wise person") in order to demand concrete solutions.
2025-05-19
15th Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The style is analytical and sharply critical, combining technical references (Article 6, paragraph 3 of the Habitats Directive) with strong emotional appeals for justice and the restoration of trust. Strong language is used to describe the government's inaction ('injustice,' 'endless stalling'), and the necessity for strategic and intergenerational thinking is emphasized. The speaker also employs rhetorical questions to highlight the instability of planning caused by the constant changes within ministries.
2025-05-14
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is analytical yet passionate, employing strong metaphors (the wolf as a canary) to warn against ecologically unsound decisions. It emphasizes injustice and the loss of trust, presenting both technical facts, akin to a commission report, and emotional appeals for the protection of rural communities. The tone is predominantly critical and urgent, demanding swift and equitable solutions.
2025-05-07
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The tone is concerned and inquisitive, posing a straightforward and critical question regarding the lack of solutions. A logical appeal is employed, highlighting the direct link between the reduction in support and the forced circumstances young people face, which may lead to dependence on family or welfare benefits.
2025-05-06
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is philosophical, passionate, and critical, emphasizing the existential importance of environmental issues and warning of dangers. It employs strong emotional appeals, literary citations, and detailed ecological argumentation to support its position. The speaker contrasts political "monotony" and "sandbox games" with the deeper meaning of nature, while maintaining an official tone when providing the overview to the commission.
2025-05-05
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is direct, critical, and confrontational, repeatedly posing sharp questions to the minister regarding the motives behind political choices ("In whose interest?"). The tone is concerned and insistent, especially concerning the fatalistic undertone of regional policy, which the speaker repeatedly challenges. Both logical arguments (statistics, price comparisons) and appeals for the protection of consumers and rural residents are employed.
2025-03-19
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is analytical and critical, employing both logical arguments (the differences between public authority and a business enterprise) and sharp metaphors ("to make chainsaws sing"). The speech is formal, but becomes sarcastic towards the end, referencing Ostap Bender and highlighting the Reform Party's long-term responsibility in the environmental sector. He/She attempts to find solutions, not culprits, but ultimately presents a clear accusation regarding the inaction of previous ministers.
2025-03-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is initially polite, acknowledging the previous coalition, but quickly becomes sharply critical and aggressive. Strong judgments are used, labeling the opponent's actions as "incompetent rampaging." The rhetoric relies on contrast (earlier promises vs. current actions) and concludes by directly questioning the political direction.
2025-02-26
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is highly formal, procedural, and neutral, fitting the role of a rapporteur who provides an overview of the proceedings within the committee. The speaker concentrates on logical arguments and the synthesis of facts, strictly avoiding personal emotional appeals. The repeated assertion that the responses are limited solely to what was discussed in the committee demonstrates prudence and fidelity to the assigned role.
2025-02-19
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is polite and complimentary, beginning with praise for the presentation ("a superb presentation"). Subsequently, the style shifts to critically questioning, focusing on logical contradictions and inconsistencies within the political arguments, seeking comment on the "strange contradiction."
2025-02-12
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is formal, thorough, and academic, utilizing extensive historical and biological explanations to establish a broader context for the subject matter. The discourse balances logical arguments with personal experience (raising wolf pups). Towards the end, the tone becomes urgent and concerned, stressing the immediate need to expedite the legislative amendment to prevent further attacks.
2025-01-29
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The style is serious and focuses on procedural criticism, stressing the necessity of thoroughness. A figurative Russian expression ("davai, davai, potom posmotrim") is used to characterize hasty and ill-considered legislation. The address is a brief retort that appeals to logic, emphasizing the importance of the quality of the content over the label.
2025-01-28
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and educational, providing broad context on the historical and ecological role of the wolf. The speaker employs logical appeals and data to justify the necessity of sensible management. However, there is also criticism directed at humanity, calling the naming of the species Homo sapiens "immense arrogance and stupidity" in relation to its environmental behavior.
2024-12-11
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The style is formal, analytical, and critical, expressing indignation over Estonia's passivity ("absurd," "strange perversity"). Both emotional and logical appeals are utilized, supporting the arguments with statistics and personal examples (e.g., "buying indulgence" for plastic bags and a trip to Spain). The overall tone is serious and urgent.
2024-11-21
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
The style is serious, academic, and insistent, emphasizing scientific inevitability and a value-driven approach. Logical appeals and figurative examples are employed, such as the "Russian roulette" analogy, to justify immediate action even in the face of minimal doubt. Furthermore, the style is sharp when criticizing factually unfounded claims presented by colleagues and the unfair procedural situation.
2024-11-05
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fourth session, plenary session
The style is formal and analytical, centered on logical argumentation and a systematic approach, particularly when elucidating the connections between the economy and the environment. While the Prime Minister is initially acknowledged for their brevity, the overall tone of the address is critical and cautionary, stressing the risk of overlooking essential matters. The text employs direct warnings concerning the repercussions of aggression and environmental impacts.
2024-10-23
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is analytical, serious, and formal, focusing on the logical distinction between personal faith and the institution. Historical justification is employed, and emphasis is placed on the seriousness of the situation ("extremely regrettable"). The speech concludes with a specific political question regarding the steps to be taken following the passage of the law.
2024-10-14
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and direct, employing strong phrases such as "completely arbitrary" and "the answer to my question was anything but exhaustive." The speaker poses logical and procedural questions, focusing on the lack of policy coherence and the illogical separation of functions. The tone is skeptical and demanding.
2024-09-18
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is analytical and questioning, focusing on logical inconsistencies within the bill. The speaker uses formal language and seeks justification for the "very strange disparity" in the treatment of the plant kingdom and the animal kingdom. The appeal is purely logical, avoiding emotional expressions.
2024-09-17
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, respectful, and analytical, beginning with praise for the Chancellor of Justice ("for an excellent presentation"). The speech is structured around a logical and generalizing question concerning the legislative procedure, seeking ways out of the problems that have arisen.
2024-06-12
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session.
The tone is serious, critical, and urgent, emphasizing the responsibility and risks that accompany rushed decisions. It employs strong logical argumentation, repeatedly posing rhetorical questions (Why the rush? Why treat this like a campaign?) and demanding analysis. It uses emotional appeal, referencing the consequences for both us and our children, and warns against making decisions in the "Davai, davai, potom posmotrim!" style.
2024-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
The style is extremely formal, courteous, and procedural, focusing on the conveyance of facts and committee decisions. The tone is neutral and calm, emphasizing the achievement of consensus and the brevity of the discussions ("The discussion was very brief; one could even say there was none at all"). The justifications are purely logical and procedural.
2024-06-05
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The style is highly formal and academic, employing extensive logical and scientific analogies (e.g., yeast and the lacquer coating of a school globe). The tone is concerned and cautionary regarding the environmental crisis, but the presentation is explanatory and analytical rather than emotional. The speaker begins explaining the subject at a very general level, moving from 4 billion years of history to a specific legislative bill.
2024-05-29
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is analytical and interrogative, employing pointed questions to expose contradictions ("strange contradictions," "dissonance"). The tone is formal and critical, focusing on logical and procedural arguments rather than emotional appeals. The objective is to compel the presenter to clarify the substance of the decision and how it contrasts with the stated claims of utility.
2024-05-15
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The style is formal, structured, and analytical, relying heavily on the citation of legal acts and logical arguments. The tone is critical and concerned, especially regarding the loss of the environmental preservation aspect, but it is not emotional. The politician frequently poses challenging and detailed questions (a "vexing question") to highlight the substantive shortcomings of the government's plans.
2024-04-18
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is analytical, questioning, and slightly critical, highlighting the necessity of rationality over emotional debate. It employs sharp rhetorical analogies (for example, comparing support for SMRs to liking "small, furry, cute animals") and focuses on logical arguments and the absence of objective information.
2024-04-11
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The style is formal, analytical, and measured, addressing problems within a broader context (the frenzied pace of development in science and technology, the limitation of resources). The speaker uses logical arguments and emphasizes the complexity of the problems, describing the situation as a "strange world" and an "eternal cycle." He/She is appreciative of the presenters but poses critical questions regarding the environmental impact of agriculture.
2024-04-09
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The style is formal and polite, beginning with an acknowledgment of the minister ("thank you for the excellent figures"), but quickly shifting to an analytical and questioning approach. Logical argumentation is employed, highlighting the integration of the economy and the environment, and concluding with a direct and substantive question about how environmental impact is being considered.
2024-04-03
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The language used is formal and analytical, focusing on logical and procedural arguments. The speaker employs a cautionary tone and rhetorical questions to emphasize the need for thorough consideration, highlighting the proverb "the wise man hurries slowly" and the warning that "the old devil might hide in the small details."
2024-03-20
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The discourse is formal, analytical, and data-driven, focusing on logical arguments and scientific facts concerning the health risks of noise. The tone is serious and concerned, but not emotional, emphasizing the complexity of the problem and the need for systemic solutions.
2024-03-12
15th Riigikogu, 3rd plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is formal, deliberate, and cautious, focusing on logical analysis and highlighting procedural risks. Proverbs and maxims ("The wise man makes haste slowly," "The devil is in the details") are used to emphasize the necessity of thorough deliberation, particularly in cases of expedited proceedings.
2024-03-06
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and interrogative, centered on logical analysis and achieving clarity. The appeal is purely logical, searching for the answer to whether the situation is an "accidental slip-up" or conscious "logic."
2024-02-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and logic-based, beginning with a polite acknowledgment of the topic being raised. The speaker employs comparative questions and analogies (e.g., insect meal vs. palm oil) to challenge the opposing party's arguments, requiring specific data and avoiding emotional appeals.
2024-01-25
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, polite ("Good presenter!"), and interrogative, focusing on logical argumentation and the demand for data. The speaker poses the questions in a structured manner, referencing the presenter's two previous statements to achieve precision and clarity.
2024-01-16
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The style is academic and philosophical, utilizing extensive analogies and personal narratives (such as desert hikes) to underscore the importance of the subject matter. The tone is urgent concerning environmental issues, referencing the water crisis and ecological distress, yet the presentation remains dignified and detailed. It incorporates references to Estonian literature (Tammsaare) and scientific facts (the proportion of water in the brain).