By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The speech is extremely critical, sharp, and urgent in tone, accusing the government of indecisiveness, wastefulness, and dishonesty ("a lie was presented"). The emphasis is on logical and fact-based arguments, presenting detailed examples of inefficient expenditures (a €54.5 million building) and poor management (slow utilization of EU funds). The style is formal and analytical, concluding with a direct appeal to those responsible: "pull yourselves together!"

The style is highly combative, critical, and accusatory, employing sharp metaphors such as "matryoshka of lies," "the corpse is still warm," and "pea candies." The speaker directly accuses the government of lying and hypocrisy, all while maintaining a formal yet sarcastic tone. The arguments presented are a blend of logical, data-driven criticism (budget figures, TWh) and emotional condemnation (references to teacher stress and the economy's lack of competitiveness).

The rhetorical style is sharp, aggressive, and accusatory, repeatedly employing phrases such as "deceitful politics," "mismanagement," and "deliberate falsehood." The speaker relies on logical arguments (specific financial figures and percentages), but frames them as a moral critique centered on the lack of trust. The tone is demanding and pressing, particularly concerning parliamentary procedure and economic matters.

The rhetorical style is highly combative and accusatory, focusing on the government's "deceitful policies" and broken promises. Direct emotional appeals, such as "dear Estonian people," are employed, warning against deception ahead of the European Parliament elections. The tone is urgent and critical, utilizing strong metaphors like "critical pandemonium and confusion."

The tone of the speech is critical, urgent, and combative, describing the government's actions as "destructive" and causing "confusion and utter chaos." The appeal is primarily logical and fact-based, relying on expert reports and statistics, but delivered with high intensity. The style is formal and structured, utilizing repetitive keywords and summaries.

The style is formal and argumentative, yet contentious and at times pointed, particularly in its criticism of the Climate Minister. The speaker employs strong labels and metaphors, such as "Climate Socialism" and "Orwellian headlines," to underscore the negative effects of the government's policy. The speaker repeatedly demands concrete figures and a fiscal impact assessment, accusing the government of "operating in the dark" and being afraid of the actual numbers.

The rhetorical style is demanding, repetitive, and slightly confrontational, emphasizing the specificity of the questions and the necessity of receiving an answer. Sarcasm ("the most excellent non-answer," "that does you credit") is employed to characterize the government's policy and criticize the concealment of information. The argumentation is primarily logical and data-driven, repeatedly demanding the answer in euros, not percentages.

The rhetorical style is accusatory, confrontational, and demanding, addressing the minister directly. Strong expressions are used (e.g., "manipulated the public"), and a clear and honest answer is demanded, emphasizing the need to "start living in truth." The tone is rather logical (referencing a document), but it is delivered with great intensity.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, dramatic, and insistent, stressing the critical state of public finances and violations of parliamentary procedure. It employs sharp metaphors and phrases ("the Brezhnev package," "democracy on tracks," "sadomasochistic support service"). It repeatedly poses specific, answer-demanding questions, accusing opponents of evasion and an inability to respond, while frequently expressing "complete dismay" and "urgent protest."

The rhetoric is combative, critical, and forceful, accusing the government of indecisiveness, inaction, and creating a political deadlock. It employs both logical argumentation (citing budget forecasts and legislation) and emotional appeal (stressing the public's difficulties in making ends meet). The Prime Minister’s responses are scornfully referred to as A4 talking points, and he is accused of skillfully dodging the questions.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and forceful, emphasizing the government's dishonesty ("lying politics") and indecisiveness. It employs both logical arguments (the lack of legal substance, the need for security intelligence) and emotional language, accusing opponents of "slogan-mongering" and political opportunism. The speaker stresses that decisions must be made "at the zenith of war," which lends the argumentation a sense of temporal and security urgency.