By Plenary Sessions: Andres Metsoja

The style is critical and analytical, focusing on logical arguments concerning tax injustice and inequality. The discourse is formal and policy-centric, employing irony (e.g., "it's funny to say that we created a tax and then solved the problems"). The tone is serious, emphasizing the negative impact of the draft bill on society.

The speaker's style is analytical, formal, and highly argumentative, relying heavily on logical and legal appeals. He employs a critical tone, particularly concerning the draft Earth Crust Act, calling it a "poorly drafted bill" and raising rhetorical questions regarding legal consistency. The interaction with the minister is persistent and detailed, focusing on the proportionality of specific regulatory solutions.

The speaker's style is critical, argumentative, and procedural, employing strong language such as "nanny state" and describing the situation as "schizophrenic." They primarily appeal to logic and legal principles (proportionality, precision of the legal framework), stressing that "The Devil is often in the details." The overall tone is formal, though occasionally frustrated regarding procedural inconsistencies.

The rhetorical style is critical and interrogative, conveying both astonishment and indignation regarding the situation ("a strange situation," "an absurd situation"). The speaker employs logical argumentation, drawing upon a detailed case study (Pärnu) and a hypothetical analogy (the Paikuse Police School), to underscore the lack of transparency in the budget process. Strong rhetorical questions are utilized to challenge the process itself.