By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The style is serious, critical, and highly procedural, focusing on logical inconsistencies and violations of procedural norms. The speaker often uses rhetorical questions to challenge the justifications for haste and emphasize the gravity of the matter.

The speaking style is analytical, but often regrettable and critical, expressing "mixed feelings" and "dismay" regarding the prevailing parliamentary culture. It employs both logical appeals (referencing the constitution and the positions of organizations) and sharp criticism against the demagoguery of opponents, accusing them of using loaded terms (Putin, Kremlin). When posing questions to ministers, the style is formal and procedural.

The style is urgent, critical, and skeptical, employing dramatic language ("police state") and rhetorical questions to emphasize the dangers of the bill. The speaker balances logical argumentation (rating the risks as medium) with emotional warnings about the consequences of data falling into the wrong hands. A concrete example involving the unauthorized use of security cameras is used to illustrate the risk of legislative disregard.

The rhetorical style starts out polite but quickly turns sharp and accusatory, particularly when the minister’s integrity is called into question. Both logical arguments (budgetary data and the necessity for precision) and social appeals (referencing trade union criticism and the refugee situation) are employed. The speaker utilizes diplomatic language to accuse the minister of misrepresenting the facts.

The tone is predominantly critical and at times confrontational, particularly when the motives of the government and the coalition are called into question (e.g., describing something as "merely a pre-election struggle"). Both logical appeals (references to the constitution, data concerning Tallinn's green spaces) and emotional appeals (emphasis on the financial well-being of families) are employed. The speaker frequently uses rhetorical questions and accuses opponents of making "cosmetic changes" to conceal the substantive issue.

The rhetorical style is critical, combative, and skeptical, particularly concerning the Prime Minister's promises, citing the broken promises of previous administrations as justification. It employs both logical arguments (tax figures, price hikes) and emotional appeals, highlighting the severe difficulties faced by the elderly in making ends meet ("just to survive"). The style is direct and uses rhetorical questions to challenge the government.

The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, particularly regarding the government’s inaction on funding school meals. The speaker employs logical arguments, relying on specific figures (1 euro, 40% inflation) and contrasting them with the fundamental need to invest in children’s health. The tone is generally formal, but expresses disappointment over the rejection of previous bills.

The rhetorical style is critical, urgent, and concerned, highlighting the tangible impact of poverty and insecurity on vulnerable populations. Both logical arguments (statistics, a 40% price hike) and emotional appeals (fear of war, families languishing in poverty) are utilized. The speaker contrasts the government’s actions with "real life" and accuses the administration of intimidating the populace.

The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, highlighting the logical consequences of government inaction and the deficiencies in political culture. Both logical arguments (insurance, police resources) and procedural critiques (coalition obstruction) are employed. The speaker uses irony, referencing the initial "super happy" posing of the Tallinn deputy mayors against the backdrop of the new mopeds.

The rhetorical style is demanding, critical, and at times frustrated, particularly because of the minister's vague responses. The speaker employs logical and data-driven appeals, repeatedly posing highly specific questions (e.g., "what is that number in 2026?"). During the third address, the speaker appeals to the session chair to ensure the minister provides an answer to the question, demonstrating a clear desire for clarity and specificity.

The style is direct and interrogative, employing rhetorical questions ("Is this a joke, or what does it even mean?") to ridicule the Prime Minister's statements and call their credibility into question. The tone is skeptical and challenging, highlighting the logical contradictions between Estonia's capabilities and its international commitments.

The rhetorical style is formal and question-focused, addressing the minister respectfully. Logical arguments are employed, drawing upon both public criticism and official documentation (the coalition agreement) to highlight areas of concern. The tone is analytical and data-driven, aiming to gain clarity regarding the risks associated with policy implementation.