By Plenary Sessions: Andres Metsoja

The rhetorical style is critical, analytical, and at times ironic, conveying concern over poorly thought-out reforms. Powerful figurative language and metaphors ("false start," "dead cow") are employed to characterize the government's actions. The speaker balances logical requirements (specificity, legal clarity) with emotional appeals, highlighting the negative effect of the reforms on proactive individuals and regional systems.

The rhetorical style is analytical and inquisitive, voicing concern over uncertainty and poorly planned actions ("It seems to me that we are doing things we haven't fully considered"). It employs moderate yet targeted criticism, stressing the necessity of clarity and a sense of security, particularly for those living in rural areas. The style is formal and relies heavily on references to legislative work.

The rhetorical style is critical and insistent, expressing concern over the undermining of democracy and the state's credibility. Strong metaphors are employed (e.g., the budget as a framework of shattered trust, an empty bucket), along with contrasts (faster alone vs. further together). The appeal is primarily to logic and economic consequences, highlighting the absence of vision and seriousness.

The style is analytical, formal, and critical, employing rhetorical questions and metaphors (e.g., building a house and the stones of the chimney cap) to underscore the lack of substance in the discussion. The speaker relies on logical arguments, referencing historical context (the abolition of county governments) and practical examples drawn from developers' experiences. The tone is concerned, as solutions tend to be absent, despite the creation of numerous instruments.

The style is one of concern and criticism, utilizing rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the government's actions and pace (e.g., "Has the government slowed down, or is it actually flooring the accelerator?"). The speaker emphasizes logical argumentation, focusing on procedural errors and the long-term negative consequences of the policy (a "disservice"). The tone is formal and straightforward.

The rhetorical style is formal and respectful, addressing both the chair of the session and the presenter. The tone is calm and procedural, requesting the resumption of the discussion and a brief summary following the long session. The appeal is logical and focuses on political integrity ("integrity is always important in this chamber").

The tone is predominantly concerned and critical, highlighting the absence of a strategic perspective and unresolved issues (using phrases like "it makes one sad" and "it causes concern"). It employs logical appeals, presenting specific financial data and referencing reforms that are currently underway. The text also uses the ironic expression "hocus pocus" to describe the contradictions inherent in the coalition's approach to voting rights.

The style is formal, yet critical and combative, employing strong emotional judgments ("very unfair," "stupidity"). Figurative language and metaphors are utilized (e.g., taking away the "fish and the fishing rod," "an axe hanging over one's head"), emphasizing the injustice and dangers inherent in the policy. The tone is inquisitive and anxious, seeking clarity regarding Estonia's position within the European Union.