By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and persuasive, focusing on institutional integrity and the necessity of restoring parliamentary authority. The speaker employs logical arguments concerning the deterioration of parliamentary work, but concludes with a direct appeal to the deputies, emphasizing their freedom to cast their votes by conscience in the secret ballot.

The rhetorical style is serious, formal, and urgent, emphasizing Parliament’s responsibility during critical moments and warning against failure. It employs both logical arguments (legal clarity) and strong emotional appeals (national interests, conscience) to guide decisions away from the fervor of day-to-day politics.

The style is formal and analytical, but sharply critical and interrogative, posing direct questions to the Prime Minister. Logical arguments are employed, interwoven with ironic or critical quotes (such as the President’s "balalaika" comparison) to amplify the attack. The speaker demands clarity regarding both political ambiguity and sensitive ethical issues.

The style of discourse is urgent, critical, and authoritative, underscoring how regrettable the government's inaction is. It employs strong logical arguments, citing specific legislation (the State Border Act) and the practices of neighboring countries (Finland, Latvia), while simultaneously utilizing an emotional framework (the destruction of Estlink 2 is framed as a "terrorist act of very great impact"). The tone is formal, yet it includes sharp rebuttals and ironic comments directed at the decisions made by previous ministers.

The style is formal and analytical, yet simultaneously sharply critical, particularly directed at the coalition, which is accused of a discrepancy between words and deeds and the production of "empty rhetoric." It employs both logical legal arguments (the necessity of an informed decision) and emotional accusations regarding the absence of political trust. The author consciously adopts the stance of a "demanding citizen of the Republic of Estonia."

The speaker's rhetorical style is sharply accusatory and demanding, highlighting the government's failures to act and denouncing the political leadership as cowardly. They employ logical appeals, relying on specific facts, dates, and official documents to demonstrate the political leadership's lack of accountability. The tone is critical and emphasizes the urgency of the wasted time.

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and incisive, emphasizing the urgent need for action so that Estonia does not waste time. Strong metaphors are employed (e.g., "management chaos," "hegemon," "there is no need for a motorcycle with two sidecars"), and the Prime Minister is addressed directly and demandingly ("stop joking!"). The appeal is primarily logical and fact-based, but delivered with high emotional intensity.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, dramatic, and straightforward, employing sarcasm and irony ("Allow me to laugh!"). The speaker presents their views in an urgent tone, accusing the government of indecisiveness and lying (for example, concerning promises to reduce bureaucracy). Both emotional appeals (crisis of confidence, deception) and specific data and sources (the National Audit Office, Swedbank) are utilized.