By Agendas: Tõnis Mölder

The language used is formal, analytical, and procedural, especially in the role of committee co-rapporteur. The tone is constructive and inquisitive, focusing on logical arguments and the clarification of technical legal points (e.g., the starting date for deadlines). Emotional appeals are avoided; instead, emphasis is placed on the transparency of the legislative process and substantive debate.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and centered on questions. The tone is polite and respectful ("Thank you, dear Minister!"), yet demanding, requesting detailed data and justifications concerning budget revenues. Emotional or personal appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on logical and fact-based discussion.

The style is formal and respectful towards the Chair of the session and the Minister, acknowledging the Minister’s presence due to the importance of the debate. At the same time, the tone towards opponents becomes ironic and demeaning, referring to the Social Democrats’ opposition as a "mosquito bite." The rhetoric is balanced, incorporating both procedural thanks and a sharp, detailed legal question.

The speech is highly formal, objective, and procedural, typical of a report delivered by a representative of a steering committee. The style is logical and fact-based, relying on the referencing of arguments presented by other participants (ministry representatives, commission members). Emotional appeals are absent; the objective is to neutrally convey the substance of the discussion held by the commission and the decisions reached.

The style is formal and analytical, addressing the chair of the session and the minister directly. The speaker employs logical arguments, relying on critical citations and the positions of official institutions to substantiate their claims. The tone is inquisitive and challenging, particularly when they call into question colleagues' assertions regarding the outrage felt by entrepreneurs.

The rhetorical style is fact-based, accurate, and neutral. The speaker emphasizes their objective of ensuring the accuracy of the transcript, utilizing logical and historical argumentation. The tone is formal and matter-of-fact, avoiding emotional or aggressive elements.

The style in question is polite and respectful when addressing the minister, yet it incorporates a critical question. The rhetoric is logical and pragmatic, focusing on the draft bill’s actual benefit to entrepreneurs and its limited scope. The term "butafooria" (stage props/sham) is used to intensify the criticism.

The rhetorical style is concerned and diagnostic, focusing on identifying the problem and posing questions ("What have we done wrong?"). The speaker employs logical argumentation, referencing clear global trends (China, USA, EC) to underscore the critical nature of the Green Deal objectives losing focus. The tone is formal and searching.

The style is generally constructive and analytical, but it also contains sharp criticism directed at the political process, accusing the factions of engaging in "political games and theater." Rhetorical questions are employed to cast doubt on the sincerity of the discussion, and emphasis is placed on a logical appeal to the need for national benefit and consensus.

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, but also incorporates a political challenge, referencing the opposing side's past ambition and a "naughty video." The speaker employs logical argumentation, focusing on risk analysis and evaluating the boundaries of political consensus. The tone is cautious regarding the dangers of the legislation becoming stalled, yet simultaneously direct when questioning political choices.

The rhetorical style is formal and focused on questions, beginning with a sympathetic acknowledgment of the candidate's prior work. The subsequent questioning is specific and policy-based, containing a slight critical or sarcastic undertone in the second address regarding the vagueness of the response ("Now we know who this sacred endeavor is left to").

The rhetorical style is polite and formal, beginning with an address to the presiding officer of the session and an apology for the lack of voice. Emphasis is placed on the accuracy of the facts and procedural correctness, utilizing a logical appeal to amend the voting results.

The style is formal, direct, and critical, focusing on logical arguments and procedural matters. Strong emphasis is placed on the necessity of transparency, and sharp rhetorical questions are posed ("In your estimation, is such biased prior communication by the Competition Authority appropriate?"). The speaker demands specific facts regarding the employment relationships of the officials.

The rhetorical style is formal and procedural, while simultaneously expressing a certain urgency regarding the long-term delay of the development plans. Logical arguments are employed, and specific questions are posed, focusing on facts and the transparency of the process. The tone is demanding and centers on accountability.

The rhetorical style is formal yet critical, conveying disappointment regarding the superficiality of the minister's responses and demanding a more detailed analysis. The argumentation relies heavily on logic, utilizing historical examples (alcohol excise tax, snus) to elucidate the mechanisms by which the black market emerges and is subsequently dismantled. The tone is persuasive, stressing that the issue is not the promotion of products, but rather a problem of state administration.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and expresses concern, addressing the Prime Minister respectfully. The speaker concentrates on logical arguments and political dilemmas, raising questions that underscore the time-critical nature and the consequences of the government’s decisions (the energy deficit). Emotional appeals are avoided; the focus remains strictly on political accountability.