By Plenary Sessions: Rain Epler

The style is formal and logical, concentrating on the substantive simplicity and significance of the draft legislation while appealing to the concept of national wealth. However, the tone is critical and worried when he accuses officials of "making things up" and highlights the political resistance that impedes national development. The speaker employs rhetorical questions to draw attention to the political motives behind the opposition's rejection of the proposed bills.

The rhetorical style is polite, formal, and constructive, utilizing addresses such as "Dear Chairman!" and "Mr. Minister!" The speaker appeals to a positive procedural culture and good will—referencing "pure luck and joy"—while simultaneously presenting his views on tax cuts and supporting draft legislation in a straightforward manner. He also makes note of the good pace of the session.

The rhetorical style is direct and provocative, posing a pointed question to the Prime Minister about the results of the economic policy. An unusual metaphor ("the zero point of sexiness") is employed to assess economic attractiveness, which lends memorability to the delivery. The tone is critical and challenging.

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, particularly concerning the government's actions and the resistance shown by the minister who refused to submit the economic analysis. Strong ideological references (World Economic Forum, Schwab) and comparisons ("the model of a rich Arab oil state") are employed. The appeals are a blend of a logical demand for economic analysis and an emotional plea to protect private property.

The style is formal, analytical, and inquisitive, addressing the session chair, rapporteurs, and ministers respectfully. The focus lies on logical and political argumentation, seeking to clarify the true objective of the draft legislation and evaluating its practical impact. The metaphor "toorik" (raw material/blank) is employed to describe the draft bill presented by the ministry, to which contributions are promised.

The style is often confrontational, critical, and ironic, using, for example, the word "vuristamine" (rattling off/babbling) to describe the prime minister's answers, and referring to Ansip as a "soda machine." Both logical arguments and statistics are employed, alongside emotional appeals (concern for the nation's mental health and the country's location on the Russian border). The tone is accusatory toward the government and expresses urgency regarding national crises.

The style is analytical and procedure-centric, often employing questions to guide the discussion or critique incompetence. The speaker is forthright, acknowledging strong performances while simultaneously sharply criticizing colleagues for deviating from the substance of the law. The emphasis is placed on logic, systematic criticism, and adherence to good parliamentary practices.

The rhetorical style is formal and critical, particularly concerning the Reform Party's earlier promises, utilizing historical recollection. It balances logical arguments (specific tax rates) with a pragmatic approach, sequentially presenting various, progressively smaller tax cut proposals. The tone is consistent and persistent, aiming to achieve at least partial success.

The style is formal, analytical, and critical, relying on reliable sources and data to preempt the opposing side's objections. The tone is direct and assertive, while simultaneously incorporating political jabs and sarcasm, for instance, by referencing the accusation against Jüri Ratas or Mart Võrklaev’s perception regarding the public tolerance for tax increases.

The rhetorical style is explanatory, yet simultaneously confrontational and direct, aimed at refuting accusations of obstruction. The speaker uses a personal address (Mr. Ligi) and demands his silence, which indicates a tense and precarious formality within the session hall.

The tone of the speech is critical and concerned, utilizing logical and data-driven arguments (index numbers, temperatures, historical examples). Figurative language is employed (e.g., the engine of the German locomotive is sputtering), and questions are posed to ministers to highlight the flaws in government policy. The style is formal, but the content is sharp and adversarial.