By Plenary Sessions: Tõnis Mölder

The style is formal, analytical, and procedural, making it appropriate for legislative debate and committee reports. It employs logical arguments and references to legal provisions, while also posing clarifying questions to the minister and requesting the analysis of complex legal situations. The tone is objective and focuses on facts and procedural issues.

The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and data-driven, focusing on specific budget lines and mechanisms. The tone is polite yet demanding toward the Minister, emphasizing the necessity of receiving answers to highly specific and technical questions. The appeals are purely logical and factual, recommending written responses when dealing with complex data.

The tone is formal and respectful towards the Presiding Officer and the Minister, emphasizing the significance of the debate. At the same time, sharp, colloquial sarcasm is used directed at the Social Democrats ("where has this mosquito bitten the Social Democrats"). The emphasis is placed on logical and procedural reasoning, culminating in the presentation of a specific legal question.

The style is highly formal, neutral, and informative, typical of a commission rapporteur's report. The speaker focuses exclusively on conveying the substance of the commission's discussion and its procedural decisions, referencing specific questions and answers. Emotional appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on delivering logical and highly detailed content.

The style is formal and analytical, making heavy use of quotes and references to institutional opinions and tabular data. The speaker poses questions aimed at verifying facts and refuting the claims of opponents. The tone is respectful toward the minister, yet resolute when presenting objections.

The rhetorical style is formal, fact-based, and corrective, emphasizing the need to ensure the accuracy of the transcript ("I am simply [saying this] for the sake of the transcript"). The tone is neutral and logical, focusing on correcting historical data.

The style is formal and respectful, addressing the presiding officer of the session and the minister directly. Criticism is presented in the form of a question, relying on logical arguments concerning the limited scope of the law. Strong figurative language (e.g., "butafooria," meaning 'sham' or 'mere window dressing') is used to emphasize the insufficient impact of the draft legislation.

The rhetorical style is analytical, concerned, and questioning, focusing on identifying systemic failures related to the Green Deal objectives losing focus. Formal language is employed, and logical alternatives (such as overreaching or communication errors) are presented in the form of a question directed at the speaker.

The style is formal and analytical, encompassing both praise for the draft ("extremely good and sympathetic") and concern regarding its implementation. The speaker employs rhetoric that contrasts genuine intent with political theater, emphasizing the necessity of broad consensus. He/She is also optimistic, yet simultaneously warns of the dangers of potential backlash and getting bogged down.

The style is formal and respectful, beginning with the acknowledgment of the prime ministerial candidate for their previous ministerial service, particularly in the environmental sector. The questions are specific and focus on clarifying the subsequent procedure for political pledges and draft legislation, utilizing analytical and pertinent language.

The rhetorical style is polite and formal, including an apology for the lack of voice. The address is aimed at correcting facts and is purely logical, emphasizing the need for accuracy in the transcript. The tone is detail-oriented and corrective.

The style is formal, critical, and analytical, focusing on logical and procedural arguments regarding transparency and the propriety of officials' actions. The speaker poses direct and pointed questions to the minister, using critical terminology to characterize the communication of the Competition Authority (e.g., "biased prior communication" and "teasers"). Initially, he asks the session chair to ensure order during the Riigikogu proceedings, which demonstrates an insistence on maintaining decorum.

The rhetorical style is formal, procedural, and exacting, focusing on specific issues and deadlines. The tone is critical of delays, and the argumentation is primarily logical and fact-based, repeatedly referencing the submission dates of the inquiry and the obligations arising from legislation.

The style is analytical, formal, and concerned, particularly regarding the proliferation of the black market, which is considered an acute problem. Logical arguments and historical examples (the alcohol excise tax in Latvia, the legalization of snus) are used to illustrate regulatory failures. The speaker stresses the need for a more substantive and detailed analysis in the minister's replies.