By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The rhetorical style is combative, sharp, and direct, employing strong phrases such as "mad tax policy" and labeling the opposing side's arguments as "very, very arbitrary." The speaker draws upon both emotional examples (farm bankruptcies) and logical comparisons (VAT in other countries). He actively defends his right to intervene in the debate, citing the intense discussion culture of the Finnish parliament.

The rhetorical style is highly confrontational, accusatory, and moralizing. Direct attacks are employed against the minister's moral authority, emphasizing an emotional appeal and demanding strict adherence to the rules (the Estonian language requirement). The tone is sharp and demanding.

The rhetorical style is direct, concerned, and demanding; although it begins by praising the inquiry ('very good and noble'), it quickly shifts to the specific concern: the lobbying for cannabis legalization. The speaker employs a logical appeal, referencing specialists, and concludes with a demanding question aimed at securing a firm promise from the minister.