By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and insistent, employing strong expressions such as "error," "meaningless slogan," "climate bureaucracy," and "unprecedented supersonic speed." The appeals are primarily logical and fact-based (referencing costs and the positions of the Chancellor of Justice), but they are delivered with an alarmist tone, emphasizing the threat to fundamental rights and the economy. The government is accused of "fudging the facts" for the public.

The tone is predominantly critical, accusatory, and urgent, stressing the necessity of change. It employs powerful metaphors and comparisons ("machine-gun taxation," "tax restaurant," "strange socialism," "North Korea," "tankist") and appeals to the voters' memory and sense of justice. It accuses the coalition of lying and political blackmail.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and confrontational, employing negative and emotional phrases such as "hocus pocus," "failed experiment," and "the spiderweb of exceptions." The speaker presents their arguments logically, referencing ERR news reports and previous correspondence, but does so using an intense tone to underscore the prime minister's personal responsibility as the architect of the tax.

The rhetorical style is critical, analytical, and urgent, focusing primarily on legal and procedural arguments. Technical and formal language is employed, highlighting the deliberate downplaying of the draft bill's impact and the absence of substantive dialogue. The speaker repeatedly poses questions (e.g., regarding the Chancellor of Justice's position or the existence of a precedent) and warns against society descending into a state of unawareness.

The style is direct, challenging, and analytical, focusing specifically on demanding facts and figures. The speaker poses a series of sequential clarifying questions, requiring specific financial data and an explanation of competence from the minister. The tone is formal and logic-driven, completely lacking emotional or narrative elements.

The style is formal, serious, and critical, posing direct and challenging questions to the minister regarding political responsibility. The emphasis is placed on logical and procedural argumentation, highlighting the principles of a democratic rule of law and the question of parliamentary confidence. An emotional appeal is utilized, referencing the suffering of the victims' relatives in the Pihlakodu incident.

The tone is extremely combative, critical, and accusatory, utilizing strong emotional phrases such as "ugly situation," "audacity," and "botched failure." It combines procedural and legal argumentation with the direct citation of the people's voice (a letter from an Estonian citizen) and rhetorical questions concerning the crisis of trust. It repeatedly employs the contrast between the "virtual world" (government rhetoric) and the "real world" (people's ability to cope/livelihood).

The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and urgent, highlighting the government's haste and misleading behavior ("Do not mislead!"). Direct questions are posed, and warnings are issued regarding the consequences (a motion of no confidence), balancing the logical demand for analyses with emotional concern for internal security.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and incisive, warning of malfunctions in the rule of law and democratic processes in Estonia. Strong metaphors are employed ("phantom law," "the floorboards slipping apart"), and the majority is accused of suffering from a "legitimacy deficit" and "voluntarism." Reliance is placed more on logical and legal arguments than on emotional appeals, while simultaneously maintaining a passionate tone.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and forceful, underscoring the severity and chaos of the economic situation. It employs strong negative labeling ("black rankings," "loser mentality") and raises pointed questions regarding the government's incompetence. The appeal is made to both logic (using data and forecasts) and emotion, demanding a shift in the national mindset from pessimist to winner.

The rhetorical style is highly combative and critical, employing strong phrases such as "the height of shamelessness," "incompetence," and "the height of shamelessness." While the appeal is emotionally charged, it relies heavily on logical arguments and detailed financial data to demonstrate the government's failure. The tone is urgent, emphasizing the threat of an inflationary spiral and the decline in the quality of life.