By Months: Priit Sibul

Total Months: 19

Fully Profiled: 19

10.2025

11 Speeches

The style is formal and directly challenging, employing rhetorical questions aimed at the presenter. The tone is critical and demands clarification, casting doubt on the opposing party’s claim regarding a quick and reasonable pace.
09.2025

31 Speeches

The speaker's rhetorical style is predominantly critical, interrogative, and procedural, often expressing surprise or concern regarding the ministers' responses. The tone is formal and logical, focusing on facts, details, and the comparison of specific documents (such as Health Insurance Fund decisions) rather than emotions. He/She often begins by criticizing the pathos of the minister's address, subsequently demanding specific answers.
06.2025

21 Speeches

The speaking style is analytical, skeptical, and often critical, repeatedly employing rhetorical questions directed at ministers to expose the lack of clarity or the disproportionality of policy. The tone is formal, focusing on logical argumentation and highlighting the substantive deficiencies of draft legislation, particularly regarding implementation and consequences.
05.2025

20 Speeches

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, aimed particularly at the Minister of the Environment, employing powerful emotional analogies (nationalization, the year 1944). The speaker maintains a formal register but also incorporates personal examples and anecdotes (Ilmar Tagel, Anne Vasarik) to illustrate their arguments. The overall tone is skeptical of the promises made by the ministers and demands substantive answers.
04.2025

8 Speeches

The style is predominantly critical, questioning, and demanding, particularly during energy policy debates, where the speaker expresses regret for previous support. The speaker employs formal language but incorporates personal examples (acquaintances in Southeast Estonia) and challenges the logical inconsistencies within the government's plans, highlighting the absence of a comprehensive vision.
03.2025

15 Speeches

The rhetorical style is predominantly critical and analytical, emphasizing the urgency of national defense matters and scrutinizing the government's actions and rhetoric. It employs contrasts (e.g., the end of the tax festival versus the VAT increase) and references historical events (church history, previous debates). The necessity for public understanding regarding state activities is underscored.
02.2025

14 Speeches

The tone is predominantly confrontational and critical, especially toward the government and the prime minister, presenting direct accusations (e.g., lying to the public, unreasonable decisions). The speaker uses logical and fact-based questions, demanding specific calculations and justifications (e.g., concerning the 2.6 billion euros). The style is formal, but includes sharp political challenges, such as the question of the prime minister's trustworthiness in parliament.
01.2025

12 Speeches

The rhetorical style is characteristic of the Riigikogu, but it is often sharp, critical, and insistent, especially regarding national defense topics, where the high level of threat is emphasized. Rhetorical questions are employed to challenge the government’s decisions and transparency, and the government’s decisions ("peacetime decisions") are contrasted with the actual level of threat. Ironic comparisons are also used ("you are almost fooling around here like in a Kreisiraadio sketch").
12.2024

8 Speeches

The rhetorical style is predominantly interrogative and procedural, focusing on challenging the justifications for decisions made by officials and commissions, and demanding explanations. Analogies are used (e.g., the "ladder" in the context of car tax and excise duties) to criticize legislative inefficiency. The tone is formal ("Honorable Chairman," "Dear Presenter") and focuses on logical political criticism.
11.2024

27 Speeches

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, critical, and at times dramatic, employing powerful metaphors (e.g., the government as an alcoholic son). The speaker blends logical arguments (budgetary data, sections of law) with moral and emotional appeals, particularly when addressing the topics of abortion and regional policy. They criticize the opposition for "talking about holes in the fence" and stress that "form is content."
10.2024

15 Speeches

The rhetorical style is formal, yet sharply critical and at times confrontational, particularly when addressing ministers. It employs numerous detailed questions regarding the foundations and calculations of policy, thereby casting doubt on the government's argumentation ("On what basis were these calculations made?"). The tone becomes personal when criticizing a minister's behavior and attitudes, accusing them of "mere performance" and highlighting "the impotence of the Estonian state."
09.2024

11 Speeches

The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and probing, often employing irony and contrasting the coalition's rhetoric with their actual deeds. The speaker raises repetitive and persistent questions, demanding concrete answers regarding funding and costs. The focus is on logical argumentation rooted in procedural errors, lack of transparency, and excessive administrative burden, while simultaneously referencing political scandals.
07.2024

10 Speeches

The rhetoric is combative, direct, and critical, at times employing an alarming tone ("catastrophic consequences"). The style blends logical criticism (lack of analysis, procedural errors) with powerful emotional appeals, accusing the government of punishing families and destroying trust. To underscore their position, the speaker utilizes a historical ideological contrast, citing Siim Kallas’s "Manifesto of the Citizens' State" on the theme of a limited state.
06.2024

15 Speeches

The rhetorical style is combative, sharp, and critical, especially concerning the coalition’s procedural actions. It employs strong emotional expressions (e.g., "massive disgrace," "nightmarish") and combines logical economic analysis with ideological criticism. It appeals to the foundational documents of the Reform Party to highlight the contradiction between the coalition’s current actions and their former values.
05.2024

14 Speeches

The rhetorical style is critical and inquisitive, directed straight at the ministers and rapporteurs, who are accused of being alienated from society. The speaker frequently employs rhetorical questions to highlight the inconsistencies in the government's actions, while simultaneously demanding concrete evidence and impact assessments. The tone is formal yet sharp, emphasizing logical and historical arguments.
04.2024

13 Speeches

The speaker's style is formal and relies primarily on questions directed at ministers and rapporteurs. He/She often employs a critical and persistent tone, demanding clarification regarding procedural choices, the impact of legal system changes, and the absence of adequate analysis. Emotional appeals are linked to valuing rural life and defending traditional societal ideals.
03.2024

8 Speeches

The rhetorical style is analytical, formal, and sharply skeptical, employing ironic and figurative expressions (e.g., "Potemkin village," "the back door") to characterize the government's actions and incompetence. The speaker stresses logical arguments, focusing specifically on resource shortages and systemic failures, while also incorporating personal anecdotes (a former desk mate) illustrating the consequences of these policies. He remains consistent and demands accountability, even when doing so causes discomfort within the parliament.
02.2024

17 Speeches

The speaker's style is formal, critical, and consistent, focusing on logical and procedural arguments. They frequently employ rhetorical questions to highlight contradictions and unreasonableness, for instance, by asking why an additional "back door" needs to be created for the financing of cultural objects. The tone is pressing, especially when requesting a debate on the interpellation and criticizing the unnecessary complexity of the draft legislation.
01.2024

13 Speeches

The speaker's style is critical, consistent, and procedural, employing an ironic tone when addressing the government ("Good ruler!"). He/She relies on logical arguments, citing specific dates and quotes to highlight the government's contradictions and incompetence. The emphasis is on facts and procedural shortcomings, rather than emotional appeals.