By Agendas: Signe Riisalo

The style is formal and procedural, particularly when communicating the commission's decisions. However, it shifts in the second address to become conciliatory and appreciative, highlighting the consensus achieved in the social sector. The arguments presented are primarily logical and fact-based, drawing upon the commission's consensus and budgetary documentation. The speaker expresses optimism and satisfaction regarding the stability that has been achieved.

The rhetorical style is analytical, logical, and data-driven, focusing on facts, studies, and cost comparisons, rather than emotional appeals. The tone is businesslike and responsible, emphasizing the need to make "smart choices and smart expenditures" and avoid forcing one's way through an open door. One speech was also procedural, drawing attention to the limits of the role of the commission's rapporteur.

The rhetorical style is defensive and straightforward, presented as a response to a personal accusation (a rebuttal). Strong accusations are leveled against the opponent ("wild accusations," "without knowing the substance"), yet others are respectfully invited to speak. The tone is irritated, but it stresses the necessity of focusing on facts and the core content of the negotiations.

The style is initially polite and appreciative, featuring a touch of cultural self-irony ("praising with Estonian-level effusiveness"). It subsequently shifts to being direct and question-oriented, utilizing rhetorical questions to clarify specific policy details.

The language used is formal, detailed, and procedural, characteristic of a commission rapporteur providing an overview of the legislative process. The emphasis is on a logical and fact-based presentation, referencing deadlines, the engagement process (25 parties), and consensus decisions. The speaker uses apologies (Oops, sorry!) and candidly acknowledges the unusual nature of the draft bill's procedure.

The rhetorical style is formal and analytical, emphasizing pragmatic and procedural justifications. The speaker employs logical argumentation to justify the rejection of the draft bill, citing the date the law is set to expire. Initially, a slight regret is expressed to the session chair regarding the insufficient focus on the bill, but the overall tone remains businesslike and neutral.

The style is formal and respectful, beginning with the salutation "Dear Minister!". The tone is concerned but constructive, focusing on a logical framing of the issue and the use of a specific example (the Astangu Centre) to justify the concern.

The style is constructive, appreciative, and substantive, beginning with a sincere expression of thanks to colleagues. The tone is balanced, combining emotional values (such as caring and the level of societal development) with logical arguments and concrete political details. It is stressed that the concerns are significant, but solutions are being sought through cooperation.

The rhetorical style is confident, corrective, and logical, focusing on refuting the "half-truths" presented by colleagues. The speaker relies heavily on logical arguments, data, and explaining the specifics of the law, strictly avoiding emotional appeals. The tone is formal and authoritative, starting with a direct reproach to the members of the Riigikogu for their lack of diligence.

The style is formal, informative, and at times defensive, offering detailed responses to criticism from the opposition and stakeholders concerning costs, inclusion, and the fundamental nature of the system. Strong logical arguments, statistics, and references to legislation are employed to justify the necessity and benefits of the draft bill. The speaker forcefully refutes "half-truths," such as the assertion that the system is becoming more socialist or that the number of aid recipients will decrease.

The style is formal, measured, and highly procedural, acting as the commission's rapporteur who delivers a "highly pragmatic summary." The speaker employs logical arguments and factual clarification, focusing on legal and medical nuances, to achieve a "reasonable disposition."

The style of address is formal, procedural, and informative, which is typical for a committee rapporteur. Logical appeals and a fact-based approach are utilized, referencing specific dates, data, and explanations provided by the ministries. The tone is neutral and responsive; while answering questions, the speaker emphasizes that they do not possess information concerning topics that were not debated within the committee.