By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The address is formal and procedural, beginning with an address to the Presiding Officer. The tone is neutral and functional, focusing on the direct application of parliamentary rules of procedure (taking a recess).

The rhetoric is sharp, accusatory, and confrontational, calling into question the moral and professional competence of both the Bank of Estonia's experts and the Prime Minister. Strong emotional appeals are employed, particularly on the issue of abortion, which is labeled "the killing of children." The tone is ironic and skeptical, referring to the forecasts as "wishful thinking" and "detached from reality."

The emphasis is confrontational, critical, and insistent, utilizing strong emotional appeals (e.g., the illegitimacy of the government, the destruction of society). The style is formal, yet it includes sharp accusations of disregarding the constitution and repeatedly references the lack of public trust (nearly 40% of people do not trust the elections). The speaker uses repetition to underscore the substantive importance of their proposed amendments and the impropriety of the committee’s decisions.

The tone is predominantly combative, critical, and skeptical, describing the minister’s report as "pretty talk" or "an evasion of reality." It leverages strong emotional appeals, particularly concerning the appreciation of Estonian language and culture and threats to internal security. The rhetoric relies on stark contrasts (Estonian families vs. Ukrainian families; beautiful words vs. lack of funding) and includes sharp accusations regarding the government's priorities.

The rhetorical style is highly combative and confrontational, employing sharp personal attacks against the minister, including drawing comparisons to Kaja Kallas and asserting that the minister’s salary is undeserved. The speaker blends formal procedural issues with heavily emotional evaluations and accuses the opposition of nitpicking over trivial matters.

The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive and accusatory, discrediting opponents by referencing their previous extreme positions taken during the crisis. The speaker employs irony and contrasts to highlight the opposing side's inconsistency between their calls for financial austerity and their actual voting behavior. The style is emotionally charged, yet it is grounded in logical argumentation concerning procedural and economic aspects.

The style is extremely combative and critical, employing strong emotional terminology such as "anti-family," "bungling governance," and "state racket." The appeal is primarily through logical criticism and the presentation of facts (declining birth rates, tax hikes), but the tone is personally aggressive, accusing ministers of personal offense and the government's policies of being anti-child. The speaker also criticizes the presiding officer's excessive strictness, advocating for a louder and more expressive style of parliamentary debate (citing the examples of Finland and Canada).

The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, accusatory, and confrontational, especially towards the Reform Party and the co-presenters. Strong emotional appeals are employed, alongside accusations of lying, mocking, and arrogant behavior ("cackling," "outright lies"). The tone is formal yet passionate, focusing on highlighting the ethical and procedural shortcomings of the opponents.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and inflammatory, employing strong emotional appeals and words such as "criminal," "bungling," and "is being stolen." The speaker contrasts the government's actions with the plight of the taxpayer, emphasizing moral outrage and the damage being inflicted upon the state. Irony is also utilized, referencing the paradoxical outcome of the "values-based deal."