By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

The rhetorical style is interrogative, demanding, and persistent, particularly concerning the details of the presenter’s answers. Formal language is employed, but sharp criticism is leveled at the government’s policy regarding its lack of clarity and its role in exacerbating inflation. The appeals are primarily logical and focus on the consequences of the policy.

The rhetorical style is polite, formal, and interrogative, addressing the presenters with respect. The focus is placed on verifying facts and logical arguments, particularly when questioning the accuracy of information provided by officials. Emotional appeals are absent; the emphasis is strictly on gathering information.

The style is formal and analytical, focusing on the logical framing of the problem and posing questions to a high-ranking official. The metaphor of a "fork" is used to describe the economic dilemma, which indicates a desire for a pragmatic solution. The tone is concerned and inquisitive, stressing the necessity of better managing price increases.

The rhetorical style is formal, directed toward the Deputy Speaker of the Riigikogu and the Chancellor of Justice, yet simultaneously critical and apprehensive. The emotionally charged term "neonationalization" is employed to characterize the situation. The appeal itself is predominantly logical, grounded in specific instances and questions regarding the Environmental Board's notification obligation.

The tone is formal, respectful, and inquisitive, beginning with a strong recognition of the work done by the rapporteur and the Financial Supervisory Authority. The speaker poses their questions constructively and logically, focusing on finding solutions and identifying political bottlenecks.

The rhetorical style is formal, directly interrogative, and investigative, employing repeated questioning to highlight inconsistencies and demand accountability. The tone is skeptical, particularly regarding the minister's claims of legal binding or a "hostage situation." The speaker relies on facts and details, referencing specific dates and documents.

The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and conveys surprise at the minister's change of stance. The emphasis is on logical argumentation, contrasting the minister's previous principles (salary in cash) with his currently accepting attitude. The speaker frequently employs questions to call into question the soundness and consistency of the minister's decisions.

The rhetorical style is sharp and aggressive, opening with a critique of the minister's speech for its lack of substance ("more pathos than content"). The speaker employs logical arguments, posing three specific and detailed questions based on information sourced from the media (Äripäev) and previous committee discussions. The tone is demanding, seeking concrete answers rather than a general overview.

The style is consistent, analytical, and rigorous, especially when submitting interpellations and challenging procedural decisions. Formal language is used, relying on logical arguments and referencing laws, the positions of the Chancellor of Justice, and specific dates. The tone is often critical and skeptical, particularly concerning the government's explanations.