By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The tone is extremely combative, critical, and forceful, utilizing strong accusations directed at the government (e.g., "lied to and cheated," "total uncertainty," "utter chaos"). The style is formal and legally detailed, yet simultaneously emotionally charged, combining the presentation of legal and economic arguments with sarcastic remarks ("a minute of advice, free of charge!"). The speaker employs repetitive enumeration (a list of tax hikes) and rhetorical questions.

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and forceful, particularly concerning the government's alleged dishonesty ("lying politics"). A balanced approach is employed, where logical arguments (specific financial data and estimates) are interwoven with an emotional appeal aimed at resolving the crisis of confidence. The speaker poses direct and analytical questions, demanding specific answers from the Prime Minister.

The rhetoric is highly combative, accusatory, and condemnatory, employing strong terms like "demagoguery" and "cowardice" to describe the actions of opponents. The speaker balances logical arguments (specific tax levels and financial loss) with emotional appeals ("Shame on them"). The style is formal yet aggressive, focusing on the poor quality of the opposing side's rhetoric.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, directly accusing the government of lying and injustice. Dramatic language and hyperbole are employed (e.g., "moving away at supersonic speed," "a crime against the Estonian state"), backing up emotional appeals with detailed budget data. The aim is to send Parliament a "political signal of dissatisfaction and a guideline for leadership."

The rhetorical style is confrontational and demanding, criticizing the prime minister for failing to answer specific questions. Strong judgments are employed (e.g., "failed experiment," "completely irrelevant and impractical line of reasoning"), and the necessity of retreating from "stupidities" is emphasized. The speaker demands clear and specific answers in a dialogue format (in yes/no form).

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong language and judgments ("insane bill," "total rubbish," "allow me to laugh"). Irony and rhetorical questions are used to underscore the government's incompetence and indecisiveness. The speaker balances the emotional intensity with detailed financial and legal arguments, repeatedly demanding answers regarding specific expenditure figures.

The rhetorical style is highly aggressive and critical, employing strong metaphors and accusations (e.g., "a blatant lie," "a bluff," "cartoonish"). The speaker emphasizes logical arguments and facts (budget figures, National Audit Office assessments) to expose the government's dishonesty and irrational management. The tone is plaintive and urgent, particularly concerning the minister's violation of parliamentary custom.