By Plenary Sessions: Urmas Reinsalu

The rhetorical style is forceful, critical, and concerned, particularly when condemning the government's fiscal policy, employing sharp assessments ("bluffed," "bungled course"). The appeals are primarily logical and fact-based, relying on significant financial indicators and deficit forecasts to underscore the gravity of the situation.

The rhetorical style is serious, insistent, and critical, emphasizing the gravity of the situation and the risk of making a misstep. It employs logical and data-driven arguments, posing direct and demanding questions to the government regarding its methods and trajectory ("How exactly is the state capable of achieving a lower deficit, and by what methods?").

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and insistent, accusing the government of lying, incompetence, and wrecking the economy. The speaker balances emotional accusations (panic, lack of confidence) with logical arguments, relying on specific economic data and statistics. He uses direct questions and sharp personal attacks against the ministers, accusing them of being anxious and overly emotional.

The rhetorical style is extremely critical, accusatory, and forceful, utilizing strong judgments (e.g., "catastrophic numbers," "bungling political agenda," "utter chaos"). The speaker relies on logical arguments and statistics to emphasize the severity of the economic downturn and the government's inaction. He begins with an emotional appeal, "Dear Estonian people," and criticizes the coalition's departure from the hall as a sign of a lack of confidence.

The speaker's style is highly combative, dramatic, and accusatory, repeatedly using words such as "cowardly," "fudging the facts," and "obfuscating." He/She employs strong logical and legal arguments, intertwining them with emotional appeals concerning the loss of trust. The speech is formal, yet it contains sharp imagery (e.g., "manor-rope culture" and describing events "in the perspective of hours, like in a movie").

The rhetorical style is sharply confrontational and critical, employing strong negative assessments ("paltry," "irresponsible"). The speaker frames their criticism as good-natured counsel, but directly accuses the Prime Minister of mismanaging facts and of a clear disconnect between their words and actions. The appeal relies mainly on logic and data, demanding that the Prime Minister provide specific numerical evidence concerning the alleged savings.

The rhetorical style is confrontational, critical, and directly interrogative, challenging the Minister of Finance to defend his actions. The speaker relies on logical arguments and official documents, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of the situation in post-independence Estonian politics.

The rhetorical style is predominantly critical and confrontational, demanding specific figures and explanations from the ministers. Strong and ironic phrases are employed ("management noise," "new reds"), emphasizing both logical appeals (waste of administrative expenditure) and emotional appeals (calling for order, dignity). The speaker maintains a formal yet sharp demeanor, directly criticizing the conduct of the session chair.