By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The style is sharply critical and urgent, employing powerful metaphors (e.g., "After me, let the deluge come!" and "lying directly to people's faces"). The speaker relies on data and logical arguments to demonstrate the government's incompetence, but also incorporates emotional elements by describing the unethical nature of inflation. The address concludes with a message of hope and resolute change directed at the public.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and forceful, employing sarcasm (e.g., "congratulations on the employment growth") and emotional imagery ("crocodile," "underground tax"). The speaker presents logical arguments (layoff figures, loss of tax revenue) and demands immediate, concrete decisions from the government, accusing it of a "slack, negligent attitude."

The tone is combative, critical, and demanding, but maintains a formal mode of address ("Mr. Prime Minister"). Strong metaphors are used ("after us, let the deluge come," "The Good Soldier Švejk") to criticize the government's logic and lack of accountability. The appeal is primarily logical and data-driven, raising questions regarding budget contradictions.

The style is highly confrontational, demanding, and passionate. It employs sharp expressions ("a complete mess," "to throw in the trash") and uses irony when addressing the government's priorities. The speaker skillfully balances logical arguments (referencing unconstitutionality and warnings from legal experts) with powerful emotional appeals aimed at defending freedoms. They utilize repetition (lying, repealing the law) and address the coalition representatives directly.

The style is combative, urgent, and sharply critical of the government. Strong and emotional language is employed ("thought crimes," "deafening silence"), while simultaneously relying on legal and constitutional arguments. The tone is accusatory and demands political accountability.

The speaker’s style is analytical, critical, and at times sharp, expressing repeated bewilderment and frustration with the minister’s answers. Strong metaphors are employed (e.g., "rubber stamp" concerning the Health Insurance Fund board, "Münchhausen trick" regarding the taxation scheme, and "demographic catastrophe"), and the government is accused of "simulated governance" and "legal voluntarism." The emphasis is on logical arguments and the demand for facts, rather than emotional persuasion.

The rhetorical style is serious and forceful, emphasizing the complexity and gravity of the security situation ("The times are complex, the times are serious"). The speaker poses formal and structured questions, focusing on clarifying the specific details regarding the acquisition of protocols, competencies, and systems. The appeal itself is primarily logical and procedural, utilizing recent international events (the Polish drone incident) to lend greater weight to the argument.

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and forceful, focusing on logical arguments and facts, particularly through the citation of National Audit Office reports. Strong and condemnatory phrases are employed ("devastating assessment," "systemic weakness in management," "stalling obfuscation") to underscore the seriousness of the situation and demand accountability. The address is formal and confrontational, concluding with a direct call to review the Minister of Defense's suitability for the office.

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, critical, and insistent, employing strong expressions (e.g., "blatantly lies," "chaos in the energy sector," "deceitful election promises"). It frequently appeals to the principles of the rule of law and parliamentary procedure, accusing the governing coalition of systemic legal violations. It makes extensive use of rhetorical questions and direct addresses to the presiding officer to highlight procedural deficiencies.