By Plenary Sessions: Andres Metsoja

The rhetorical style is analytical and critical, focusing on regulatory inconsistencies and procedural errors that have resulted in failures. The speaker employs logical argumentation, comparing various industries and referring to the failure of the proposed bill as a "hostage drama." The tone is formal and neutral, emphasizing the parliament's focus and the necessity of finding a swift resolution.

The speaking style is critical, analytical, and forceful, emphasizing market failure and the state's statutory obligations. It uses rhetorical questions to challenge the minister and criticizes the mutual blaming among cabinet members. The argument is primarily logical and fact-based, focusing on price disparities and the suppression of competition.

The style is analytical and persuasive, stressing the need for balance and common sense in environmental protection. It utilizes both logical arguments (the necessity of legislative change, population data) and emotional appeals, defending the reputation of hunters and livestock farmers. The discourse becomes personal and ironic, describing the defiance and contempt provoked by bureaucracy, particularly regarding the difficulties in obtaining necessary approvals.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and question-oriented, expressing concern regarding systemic management issues. The tone is critical and highlights systemic shortcomings, relying on information obtained through the press and high-ranking officials of the Defence Forces, which provides a logical foundation for the appeal.