By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The rhetorical style is highly combative, dramatic, and accusatory, employing strong emotional appeals and sharp contrasts (e.g., 400 million for the Ministry of Climate versus 105 ERSOs). Direct personal attacks are used, along with accusations of the government's corrupt and bungling governance. The tone is ironic and critical, stressing that the government has "totally failed."

The rhetorical style is sharp, skeptical, and challenging, using direct questions to cast doubt on the minister's prudence and the justification of the decisions. The speaker refers to earlier offensive remarks regarding the VAT on food, creating an emotional contrast. He concludes the question with a direct accusation of a lack of caution.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and ironic, employing strong juxtapositions (past success versus current failure). The speaker relies both on concrete data (the debt burden) and emotional appeals (health concerns, food availability). Sarcasm and the quoting of opponents (such as Jürgen Ligi) are utilized to underscore the government's inaction and incompetence.

The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive, sarcastic, and confrontational, employing strong emotional contrasts (generosity vs. despair). The speaker uses personal attacks against the minister, accusing him of cognitive dissonance, megalomania, and memory loss ("passion kills memory"). Data is used to support emotional arguments, demonstrating the invalidity of the government's claims.

The style is demanding, persistent, and confrontational, focusing on extracting a concrete answer. The speaker employs direct questions and rhetorical contrast, referencing the minister's previous admission of ignorance. The appeal is directed both at logic (administrative procedure) and the expectations of the public ("to the entire Estonian people").