By Plenary Sessions: Peeter Tali
Total Sessions: 41
Fully Profiled: 41
2025-10-15
The 15th Riigikogu, VI Session, Plenary Sitting
The speech is formal, serious, and responsible, emphasizing the necessity of a thorough and strategic approach. The tone is at times urgent, urging the audience to be "proactive" and avoid the superficial decisions made previously. Alongside logical arguments and technical details, the speech also employs historical (the Hanseatic era) and cultural references ("Ukuaru valss," "Für Alina").
2025-10-08
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The speech is well-argued, logical, and confident, emphasizing the rational need for amending the law. It uses a historical comparison (Luddites) and an ironic metaphor (police vision problems) to criticize the opponents' scare tactics. The tone towards the Centre Party is sharp and distrustful, but generally focuses on offering solutions.
2025-09-25
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The style is confident and occasionally confrontational, leveling accusations against the opposition for inciting "class hatred" and demonstrating mathematical incompetence. The text utilizes both emotional appeals (culture as the last line of defense) and concrete figures and statistics (over 1800 euros net annually, 5% of GDP allocated to defense spending). While the general tone is optimistic concerning the Estonian standard of living, it simultaneously stresses the urgent need for action given the security threats.
2025-09-24
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
The style is formal, substantive, and procedural, characteristic of a commission representative addressing the plenary session. The argumentation is purely logical, focusing on facts, dates, and consensual decisions. Emotional or personal appeals are not employed, emphasizing instead thorough preparation and the achievement of clarity.
2025-09-17
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is urgent, serious, and motivating, emphasizing the need for immediate action stemming from the current security situation ("every day is immensely important"). The speaker employs logical arguments to justify the necessity of amending the law, while also adding emotional emphasis regarding the unpredictability of crisis and war. The style is formal and centers on the speed of the proceedings and the objective that every individual understands their role during a crisis.
2025-09-11
15th Riigikogu, 6th plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is formal ("Honorable Chairman! Excellent Presenter!"), but it remains direct and question-focused. It employs hypothetical but pointed scenarios (like a week without internet) to test and demand practical preparedness. The tone is demanding, focusing on logical accountability, and directly asks whether the necessary actions have been rehearsed or practiced.
2025-09-10
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is extremely formal, neutral, and informative, typical of a committee rapporteur addressing the plenary. The speaker employs logical appeals, presenting a detailed overview of the committee session, the participants, and the procedural decisions. Emotional or personal assessments are entirely absent; the emphasis is placed strictly on procedural accuracy.
2025-09-04
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The speech is formal and respectful, addressing the audience as "Honored Chairman" and "Dear colleagues." The tone is confident and persuasive, using strong superlatives to emphasize the quality of the presented draft bill. The style is rather declarative and focuses on communicating the action taken.
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and forceful, especially in its condemnation of the Moscow church's activities. Strong emotional comparisons are used, such as comparing Patriarch Kirill to radical mullahs who call for jihad. The appeal is a blend of historical facts and moral condemnation, emphasizing that the Moscow church worships not God, but the ambitions of the Kremlin.
2025-06-16
XV Riigikogu, V Session, Plenary Sitting
The speaking style is forceful, motivating, and optimistic, emphasizing the necessity of immediate action and avoiding wasted time. Historical parallels are employed (Estonian independence, the withdrawal of Russian forces) alongside optimism ("Together we can do this") to counter the doubts of the opposition. The style is formal, yet it includes emotional appeals and clearly structured political demands (three key points).
2025-06-04
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is insistent, serious, and resolute, focusing on emphasizing the brutal nature of war and the necessity of immediate action. Both logical arguments (the limitations faced by a small nation) and metaphors ("poker game") are employed to clarify the essence of deterrence. Opponents (Putin) are directly named as perpetrators of the crime of aggression and war criminals, which lends the speech a personal and value-driven intensity.
2025-05-15
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is optimistic about the success of education reforms, but simultaneously resolute and occasionally combative toward opponents. It employs strong emotional and historical appeals (the survival of the nation, education as a miracle, the teachings of our forefathers) combined with political specifics. To emphasize persistence, the metaphor "English infantry" is utilized, and culture is referred to as "the last line of defense."
2025-05-14
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is defensive yet sharply skeptical, employing emotional appeals to justice ("injustice is never good"). The speaker utilizes vivid metaphors ("crocodile tears") and ironic comparisons (Peskov and Vooglaid), hinting at hidden agendas. The overall tone is businesslike, yet passionate and confrontational.
2025-04-09
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is urgent and direct, emphasizing the security threat and the need for clear deterrence. Strong, sometimes provocative language is used (e.g., the right to sink a civilian vessel), but this is justified by logical necessity and constitutionality. The tone is formal and persuasive, urging support for the draft bill.
2025-03-26
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is highly combative, decisive, and insistent, emphasizing the need for immediate action and avoiding any delay. Strong and polarizing metaphors are employed, such as calling the Moscow church a Kremlin subcontractor and comparing Patriarch Kirill to radical mullahs who incite jihad. The speaker appeals primarily to national values and security threats, rather than relying heavily on factual data.
2025-03-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is analytical and strategic, utilizing comparisons with international models (Israel, South Korea). The tone is professional and inquisitive, yet it includes a powerful call to the nation's will for defense and the application of ingenuity. The speech is formal, addressing both the chairman and the prime minister.
2025-02-25
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The tone is formal and respectful, yet it contains an urgent warning about security threats, describing Russia as an aggressor state. The speaker employs both logical arguments (amending the constitution is possible; the math counts) and emotional appeals (the Kremlin uses people as "pawns"). He modestly identifies himself as a young politician or a "parliamentary freshman."
2025-02-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The style adopted in foreign policy matters is formal and businesslike, addressing the minister respectfully. In domestic debate, however, the tone becomes highly emotional and aggressive, employing a powerful rhetorical device by comparing the political situation to Orwell's work. The speaker uses this analogy to emphasize the blurring of truth and falsehood and the hypocrisy of the opposing side.
2025-01-22
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is serious and apprehensive, focusing on the geopolitical threat and Russia's strategic success. The speaker employs direct questions ("What good will come of this?") to call into question the practical benefit of the proposed action. The style is formal and balances logical analysis with value-based references to freedom and supporting the free world.
2024-12-11
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is confident and, at times, combative, especially when dismissing criticism from the opposition ("whining and wailing"). Logical and fact-based arguments are utilized (financial figures, specific weapon designations), and there is an emphasis on the urgent need for security, supported by examples of war crimes committed in Ukraine. The tone is innovative and bold, praising the new defense forces strategy.
2024-12-04
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
The style is dual: when presenting as the rapporteur of the leading committee, it is formal and procedural, but when responding to criticism, it becomes passionate and combative. Strong emotional appeals are used, especially in defending the honor of Estonian soldiers, along with historical examples concerning allied relations and the bearing of sacrifices. Figurative language ("Kört-Pärtel's shirt") is used to describe the confusion, and metaphors ("brain dead or in a coma") are employed to characterize the situation of the UN.
2024-11-06
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The tone is official, matter-of-fact, and procedural, focusing on facts and the steps of the proceedings (dates of hearings, substance of decisions). It employs logical arguments to underscore the importance of alliance relationships and guaranteeing security. It also utilizes value-based rhetoric, emphasizing that Estonian soldiers are fighting "for something" (Estonia and allied relations), and references the musketeers' principle: "One for all, all for one."
2024-11-05
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fourth session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, authoritative, and insistent on security matters, stressing the need for swift action ("winter is coming"). The speaker employs both logical arguments (referencing legislation and the commission's work) and powerful value-based and emotional appeals, particularly when criticizing opponents. Figurative language is utilized, such as "bureaucracy festival" and "neither the Brussels empire nor the bogeyman," while emphasizing straightforwardness and honesty.
2024-10-23
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is urgent and combative, stressing the need for swift action without further delay. Strong and emotional phrases are employed (e.g., "hostile organization," "as a subcontractor for the Kremlin's special services"), relying heavily on historical facts and security arguments. The speaker uses repetition (the reiteration of facts) to underscore their position.
2024-09-25
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
The tone is generally serious, pertinent, and at times urgent, particularly concerning security and sanctions issues. The speaker employs both logical arguments (such as reducing bureaucracy) and a strong moral framework (referencing the aggressor state and corruption). The presenter defends the work of the National Defence Committee and criticizes the practice of political populism, while also acknowledging that, as a "young politician," they are still learning the ropes of parliamentary work.
2024-09-18
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is urgent, decisive, and slightly provocative, especially when responding to the opposing side. It balances logical arguments (the urgent need for legislation) with an emotional emphasis on the responsibility owed to the public and the survival of the state. The speaker uses metaphors ("a live-fire exercise") and references (the war in Ukraine) to illustrate their position.
2024-09-11
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fourth session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is analytical, formal, and insistent, stressing the continuous nature of battles in cyber and information space ("battles are happening all the time"). The speaker employs logical arguments and real-world examples (Ukraine, GRU attacks), while simultaneously establishing an alarming connection between digital failure and the direct threat of kinetic war on Estonian territory.
2024-06-13
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Third Session, Plenary Session
The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and pressing, emphasizing the risks stemming from neighboring an aggressor state and the critical needs of national defense. The address is structured around a logical and straightforward question, which demands pragmatic advice on funding from the government's economic advisor.
2024-05-16
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Third Session, Plenary Session
The rhetorical style is direct, fact-based, and interrogative, beginning with a specific terminological correction aimed at the individual mentioned by name. Sharp, practical questions are posed, targeting both the outlook for domestic production and the government's funding sources, while emphasizing clarity on these matters.
2024-05-06
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
The style is highly combative, direct, and forceful, stressing the necessity of speaking about things as they are and putting an end to procrastination and delay. The speaker employs powerful emotional appeals and a moral framework, labeling the Moscow church an "enemy organization" and comparing Kirill to a "radical mullah of Islamic extremists calling for jihad." He emphasizes that imperialists view the search for compromise as weakness, and calls for decisive action.
2024-04-18
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, addressing the chairperson and the presenter respectfully. A provocative tone is employed, especially when referring to tactical nuclear warheads as "small friendly ones," which lends an ironic or sarcastic undertone to the discussion.
2024-04-10
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal and considered, utilizing both philosophical references (academician Juhan Peegel’s quote on the difficulty of life) and detailed legislative arguments. The first speech is constructive and consensus-seeking, while the second is direct and challenging, focusing on fact-checking and casting doubt on the opponent’s credibility.
2024-04-09
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The style is formal, addressing the director and the minister directly, but the content is questioning and critical. A rhetorical question is used ("couldn't we somehow manage to employ our own people?") to call into question the government's priorities in labor policy. The argument is logical and relies on the data presented.
2024-03-13
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting.
The style is highly formal, analytical, and procedural, centering on the detailed reporting of the work of the National Defence Committee and the legislative processing of the draft bill. The tone remains neutral and descriptive, eschewing emotional appeals and relying instead on the logical presentation of facts and timelines. The speaker employs extensive technical parliamentary terminology.
2024-03-12
15th Riigikogu, 3rd plenary sitting
The style is formal, objective, and procedural, focusing on the logical explanation of the bill's objectives and content. The speaker emphasizes the urgency ("as a matter of urgency") related to the upcoming Spring Storm exercise, which commences in May. An appeal is made to colleagues for support to ensure the smooth transition of the bill to the second reading, stressing the importance of national defense.
2024-02-21
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The style is serious, critical, and pressing, utilizing strong judgments to describe Russia’s actions ("another lie," "they scoff at our law-abidingness"). The speaker relies on logical arguments and concrete examples to emphasize Russia’s untrustworthiness as a state governed by the rule of law. The conclusion stresses that anything coming from Russia cannot be trusted, which provides the address with an emotional and resolute ending.
2024-02-20
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is serious, concerned, and direct, employing strong moral judgments (e.g., "perverse idea"). The speaker poses direct and substantive questions to the presenter to emphasize the gravity of the situation and find solutions regarding the possibilities for the children's return.
2024-02-13
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal and question-focused, addressing the ministers directly. The tone is concerned and urgent, particularly concerning the fulfillment of promises and Russia's increasing military capability. Logical arguments are employed, and specific data is cited (data provided by the Estonian Ministry of Defence).
2024-01-23
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is insistent and purposeful, emphasizing the need for a "fierce will to defend." The speech is formal (an address to the Prime Minister) but employs strong, motivating language, drawing a contrast between the 19th and 21st centuries. The style merges strategic logic with a powerful emotional appeal to the will to win.
2024-01-18
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is direct and provocative, blending praise (for the minister's presentation) with sharp criticism. Emotionally charged and accusatory phrases are employed, such as "Italian-style strike" and "to sabotage the transition to Estonian-language instruction," in order to highlight the ill will of the opposing party. Nevertheless, the questions themselves are posed politely and formally ("Thank you, Chairman!").
2024-01-16
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is confrontational and critical, utilizing strongly emotionally charged language ("extremely shameful"). The address is short and direct, focusing first on condemnation and then on a specific procedural question.