By Plenary Sessions: Vadim Belobrovtsev

The rhetorical style is passionate, critical, and at times emotional, especially regarding the issue of suffrage, which he refers to as a "schizophrenic situation." He balances emotional appeals (compatriots, loyal residents) with thorough logical argumentation, drawing extensively on quotes from respected experts and former heads of state. He also employs procedural arguments concerning the correctness of the session's conduct, criticizing the chairman's actions. The style is formal, yet distinctly oppositional.

The rhetorical style is sharp and critical, employing emotionally charged words such as "rough handling" (quoting a journalist) and posing challenging rhetorical questions regarding the minister's credibility. The speaker relies on authoritative sources, citing both the press and a previous statement by the Prime Minister to confirm their position.

The tone is serious and urgent, stressing that this is a "very big problem" that requires prompt and serious intervention. It employs both logical arguments (statistics, political comparisons) and expressions of concern for the victims who are losing their money. The discourse is formal and detailed, presenting a multitude of questions and specific policy proposals.

The speaker's style is critical, combative, and anxious, employing strong emotional appeals, particularly when discussing inflation and the plight of vulnerable groups. He/She uses rhetorical questions ("Does this budget make anyone's life in Estonia better?") and accuses the government of breaking promises (referring to the teachers' career model as a "bluff"). The speech is formal, yet it is aimed both at colleagues and at the "people of Estonia" watching via the internet.

The rhetorical style is critical, concerned, and inquisitive, emphasizing the "painful" impact of the budget measures on the less privileged. Direct questions are posed to ministers, demanding clarification regarding the consistency between the government's intentions and its actual actions. Appeals are made both to logic (the targeted use of funds) and to emotion (voters' concern over constitutional rights).

The style is consistent, argumentative, and formal, while simultaneously expressing disappointment over the coalition's opposition. The speaker uses logical appeals, emphasizing that adding a national holiday is positive and compensates for economic losses with improved productivity. He contrasts his positive bill with the coalition's negative steps, such as tax increases and the fourfold increase in consultation fees.

The rhetorical style is analytical and sharp, presenting a direct and challenging question to the Prime Minister. Logical appeals are employed, relying on a factual comparison between the economic performance of Estonia and other European countries to underscore the seriousness of the situation. The tone is formal and critical.

The style is formal and analytical, but shifts to become sharp and accusatory when addressing social policy issues. This involves the use of emotional appeals (such as cuts made at the expense of the poorest) and direct accusations of abandoning core principles ("eating their words"). However, when supporting the draft legislation, the tone is constructive and sets an example, stressing logical arguments for the inclusion of stakeholders.