By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The rhetorical style is confrontational and emotional, employing sharp metaphors ("a nation of fools," "the devil is in the details") to criticize the government. Numerous rhetorical questions are used to emphasize the practical and moral consequences of social issues, often by referencing traditional values ("our grandfathers are turning over in their graves").

The tone is sharp, accusatory, and insistent, employing sarcasm (e.g., "tax festival," "obtuse") and an ironic anecdote (the gypsy and the horse) to ridicule the government's economic promises. It utilizes a legal framework and poses rhetorical questions to highlight the danger of the government's actions to the constitutional order.

The rhetorical style is critical, skeptical, and direct, questioning the bill's justification based on public interest and stating that "this talk is worth absolutely nothing." Both logical arguments (the cost of network construction) and emotional appeals (the surrender of Estonian territory) are employed. The speaker attempts to make the complex piece of legislation understandable to the common person by using simplified explanations.

The style is extremely combative, emotional, and forceful, employing heavily charged and polemical language (e.g., "child-hating government," "class-hatred agenda," "insane actions"). Emphasis is placed on national ruin and injustice, appealing to the listeners' emotions rather than detailed data. The speaker uses irony and sharp accusations to highlight the immorality and instability of the government's actions.

The style is predominantly combative, critical, and at times ironic, especially when addressing the government. Strong emotional language is employed, labeling the government's activities as "anti-business," "deviant," and "criminal" from the standpoint of how the state should function. Logical arguments (cost savings, long-term perspective) are interwoven with moral and ethical issues (the hiring of consultants, the abuse of social welfare benefits).

The style is sharp, confrontational, and accusatory, utilizing strong emotional terms such as "stole" and "robbery." The speaker is sarcastic, particularly when criticizing the ambiguity of the prime minister's responses and presenting the finance minister's quote regarding rising prices. They expect the respondent to possess a broad scope of knowledge and criticize the vagueness of the answers.

The style is combative, critical, and often accusatory, utilizing strong expressions (e.g., "stolen," "rubbish," "hurrah-optimism"). Both emotional appeals (personal financial loss, the Russification of children) and logical arguments (loss of export revenue) are employed. Rhetorical questions and historical parallels (Moscow vs. Brussels) are often used to criticize ideological opponents.