By Plenary Sessions: Valdo Randpere
Total Sessions: 30
Fully Profiled: 30
2025-10-09
15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The style is formal and respectful, addressing the Speaker of the Riigikogu and the rapporteur. The address is presented in the form of a question, focusing on a logical and analytical discussion regarding the structure of the economy. The tone is investigative and politically prudent.
2025-09-18
15th Estonian Parliament, 6th sitting, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, focusing on logical argumentation and a legal framework. Although the tone is anxious due to the nation's difficult times, the question is posed politely and directly, demanding clarity regarding the bank's intentions in supporting the state budget.
2025-09-04
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The rhetorical style is confrontational, direct, and intense, encompassing both logical argumentation and emotional expression ("It already hurts me just thinking about it," "damn, the commentary"). The speech is centered on legal logic and urgently demands immediate action, receiving applause from the audience.
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is analytical and critical, especially regarding the opponents' proposals, which are referred to as "an empty document" and "ideological self-promotion." The speaker uses logical arguments and references to the commission's work, but also includes ironic and colloquial expressions (e.g., "nanny," "fools must indeed be separated from their money") to emphasize their stance. The tone is formal, as the commission's views are being represented, but it also contains sharp personal judgments.
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The speaking style is direct, procedural, and slightly humorous, including a remark intended to engage the audience (a request not to leave the hall). The emphasis is on logical appeal, stressing the quality and consensus of the draft bill to justify a swift final vote.
2025-05-14
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is confident, direct, and often ironic, employing humor (e.g., about joking around on a plane) even during a formal presentation. It balances logical explanation (the necessity of taking responsibility) with personal remarks and criticism of opponents who view everything through a "worldview prism." The tone is generally informative, but in a debate, it becomes slightly confrontational.
2025-04-17
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is direct, corrective, and confrontational, starting by accusing the previous speaker of "muddling the issue." Logical counterarguments and intensive factual correction are utilized, sometimes even directed at the presiding officer, to emphasize the precision and correctness of the speaker's own assertions.
2025-04-15
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The style is analytical, historical, and strongly defensive, employing logical arguments and detailing the legislative background. The speaker uses a historical example (the 2012 amendment to the Collective Agreement Act) to discredit the opponents' fear-mongering tactics. Furthermore, he sharply criticizes the opposition for their lack of preparation and their repetitive statements.
2025-03-12
15th Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session
The rhetorical style is corrective and combative, utilizing historical parallels (Martin Helme's behavior) to refute the opponents' accusations. The speaker relies on logical and factual arguments, presenting specific dates and legal citations. The tone is at times dismissive, referring to the opponent's claims as "nonsense" and advising them to stop their "chattering."
2025-02-19
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is respectful and analytical, addressing the minister courteously ("Dear Minister, still dear Minister"). The speaker employs logical arguments and relies heavily on historical political precedent to justify their proposals.
2025-02-12
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is enthusiastic, highly positive, and logic-driven, employing strong superlatives to praise the draft bill ("almost the best bill"). He/She balances the formal presentation with light humor (regarding the late hour and the weariness of colleagues) and emphasizes the substance of the arguments and the consensus.
2025-01-15
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is confrontational, sharp, and accusatory, employing the word "halab" to describe the opposition's actions. The speaker uses rhetorical questions and quotes the opposing side's earlier positions to highlight their current inconsistency and lack of memory. The appeal is primarily logical, focusing on facts (deadlines) and historical citations.
2024-11-07
15th Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is predominantly confrontational and direct, employing a didactic tone when explaining facts and accusing opponents of dishonesty (a "sincerity deficit"). He uses forceful personal rebuttals to overturn false claims and demands factual accuracy, accusing the opponent of "spouting garbage."
2024-10-08
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharp, sarcastic, and direct, employing personal jabs aimed at opponents (such as Lauri Laats’ absence and the comparison of Kalle’s draft bill to Kört-Pärtel’s shirt). The speaker uses colloquial expressions and relies on logical and procedural arguments, emphasizing the committee's unanimous decision. The tone is predominantly aggressive and entirely dismissive of the draft legislation.
2024-06-04
15th Riigikogu, third session, plenary sitting
The speaking style is personal and confrontational, focusing on anecdote and emotional expression (regret). The speaker uses their personal history to express a strong and regretful stance toward their colleague, Andrei Korobeinik. The tone is unusually informed for the Riigikogu chamber and is directed straight at the opponent.
2024-05-29
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is analytical, reflective, and occasionally humorous, incorporating personal observations and anecdotes (such as examples drawn from Swedish television). He balances logical arguments (constitutional references, committee decisions) with engaging narration to explain both the substance of the draft bill and the dynamics of the committee discussion. He also employs indirect criticism (by referencing Grünthal's earlier proposals) to emphasize the seriousness of the topic under consideration.
2024-05-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, information briefing
The rhetorical style is critical and procedural, beginning with a firm demand for equal speaking time. Irony and hyperbole ("of flowers and butterflies") are employed to ridicule the commission's activities and underscore their insignificance. The overall tone is demanding and centers on the logical argument that inefficient work organization impedes the government's work.
2024-05-07
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is provocative, sarcastic, and blunt, employing strong emotional language (like calling something a "garbage heap"). The speaker uses rhetorical questions specifically to challenge the authority of the Heritage Protection Board and its bureaucratic inflexibility. He incorporates cultural references ("The Phantom of the Opera") to draw a contrast, maintaining a critical tone while simultaneously demanding concrete solutions.
2024-04-03
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The style is confrontational, sarcastic, and occasionally personal, particularly targeting the opposition (Kert Kingo). It utilizes a logical structure and factual evidence (citing commission protocols) to support its arguments, aiming to demonstrate the opposing side's incompetence and propensity for wasting time. Irony is employed (e.g., "the more, the merrier") along with direct accusations of presenting false claims.
2024-03-20
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The style is analytical and fact-based, focusing on explaining the legislative process of the draft bill and the legal issues involved. It uses an anecdote from a conversation with former Prosecutor General Lavly Perling to emphasize Russia's untrustworthiness. The tone is generally formal but contains slight irony (e.g., Mart Maastik's "half-baked or pathetic" amendment proposal).
2024-03-13
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is direct and occasionally combative, employing rhetorical questions to cast doubt on the opponent's understanding and logic ("what prevents you from understanding?"). Although the speaker relies on logical arguments and tax figures, the tone is intense, and they forcefully reject the opponent's emotional narrative of class struggle.
2024-02-21
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The style is predominantly formal and analytical, particularly when presenting the commission's work, but it also includes personal recollections and light humor ("I enjoy this honor and glory"). The argumentation is strongly logical, focusing on Russia's unreliability in adhering to international treaties. A second speaker introduces a moral and urgent appeal, deeming the preoccupation with treaties inappropriate and absurd given the context of the war.
2024-02-14
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is confrontational and critical, focusing heavily on the past mistakes and hypocrisy of the opponents (members of Isamaa). Rhetorical questions and ironic suggestions are employed, such as renaming the tax the "national defense tax" to mitigate public outrage. The tone is analytical, yet it includes sharp personal attacks aimed at undermining the opponents' credibility.
2024-02-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, personal, and sarcastic, employing direct accusations and questions aimed at the opponent ("what bug has bitten you, Henn?"). The speaker attacks the adversary by exploiting logical inconsistencies and using emotional persuasion, even referencing the language teacher's reaction in the grave.
2024-02-07
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary sitting.
The style is predominantly analytical and logical, but simultaneously confrontational, especially when engaging the opposition, using direct address and rhetorical questions. He/She criticizes opponents' arguments by pointing to their political motives and shaky foundation (e.g., lawyers' "bought" opinions), and authoritatively defends the integrity of the system.
2024-01-24
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, information briefing
The rhetorical style is analytical and confident, beginning with an expression of personal surprise directed at the questioner, yet maintaining a respectful tone. He/She employs both logical arguments (state sovereignty) and an emotional and historical reference (the church as a "thorn in the side"). The speaker expresses a desire to be even "a bit more radical" in addressing the subject matter.
2024-01-23
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The style is formal and direct, presenting the Prime Minister with a series of sharp questions. The tone is analytical and concerned, focusing on logical connections (free higher education and lack of funds) and the use of international examples to support the arguments. Instead of emotional appeals, the assessment of policy consequences dominates.
2024-01-17
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, information briefing
The rhetorical style is direct, critical, and preemptively provocative, acknowledging potential political incorrectness. The speaker employs logical argumentation, highlighting the contradiction between previous promises and the current reality. Finally, a powerful and strong statement is demanded from the minister.
2024-01-16
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style starts off humorous and self-deprecating (referencing the infrequency of speaking), but subsequently becomes sharply critical of the opponents' rhetoric. He/She employs logical arguments and institutional explanations, accusing the opposition of "dreadful political sloganeering" and over-dramatizing the situation.
2024-01-11
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The style is direct, critical, and structured, posing a two-part question that combines substantive pressure (regarding surrogate motherhood) and procedural pressure (regarding tactics). The speaker employs sharp rhetoric to compel the opposing side to clarify the link between their previous value-based stances and their current procedural strategy. Finally, a demand is made that EKRE must declare its intentions regarding every draft bill.