By Plenary Sessions: Helir-Valdor Seeder

The style is predominantly critical and confrontational, particularly on issues of economic and security policy, employing judgments such as "very short-sighted." He/She poses many direct questions to ministers and commission representatives, demanding clarification regarding the absence of government arguments. There is also one procedural, slightly awkward question concerning the rapporteur's temporary absence.

The style is critical, analytical, and matter-of-fact, expressing deep concern (e.g., "My heart aches over this") regarding strategic resources. The speaker employs logical arguments, referencing historical facts and criticizing government responses as "slogan-driven" and "propagandistic." The focus is on details and long-term consequences, rather than emotions.

The style is predominantly formal, argumentative, and confident, focusing on issues related to the rule of law and procedural matters. The speaker adopts a defensive posture, rejecting accusations of deliberate and malicious conduct, and employs logical appeals, stressing that the principle of the rule of law does not mean arguing at any cost. He uses sharp contrasts, referencing colleagues' "surprisingly great faith" in the president's justice.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and demanding, focusing on government accountability and transparency. The speaker employs direct questioning, quotes statements made by the opposing side (Jürgen Ligi's "sheep"), and accuses the Prime Minister of selective criticism. The argumentation is logical and relies on official data (the National Audit Office), contrasting sharply with the government's reliance on mere slogans.

The style is critical, substantive, and exacting, emphasizing institutional propriety. Direct questions and strong warnings regarding the peril of setting a precedent are employed, underpinned by logical argumentation concerning the fulfillment of the minister's duties.