By Plenary Sessions: Mart Helme

The style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, utilizing sharp phrases such as "at the banana republic level" and "the snitching chamber." The speaker emphasizes the government's indifference and lack of interest in substantive work, accusing them of telling the Estonian people to "chew hay." Logical arguments (the long-term flow of tax revenue) are mixed with strong emotional appeals (hatred of the Estonian people, devastation/ruins).

The speaking style is extremely combative, aggressive, and urgent, employing strong emotional phrases such as "the shamelessness is simply overflowing" and "deliberately obfuscates." Appeals rely heavily on fear (500,000 refugees, system collapse) and include direct personal attacks and accusations of conflicts of interest. Data (UN decisions, analyst assessments) are often presented with the goal of supporting cautionary and catastrophic scenarios.

The speaker adopts a serious and urgent tone, stressing the "extremely painful" nature of the subject and the epidemic threat it poses. The style is academic and historically grounded, drawing extensive parallels with the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as the situation following the collapse of the Soviet Union, to illustrate the risks associated with the spread of drug addiction. The presentation utilizes both logical arguments (the absence of border control) and moral appeals (the breakdown of moral barriers).

The rhetorical style is skeptical, confrontational, and provocative, employing strong language (e.g., directives are coming down the pike "like lumber out of Vändra"). The speaker makes emotional appeals, referencing the shock felt by colleagues ("our hair is standing on end"), and proposes radical solutions, all while maintaining a formal address toward the presiding officer and the rapporteur.

The speaking style is highly combative, accusatory, and insistent, employing strong emotional language, such as labeling the car tax "brutal" and something that stems from a "communist mindset." The central rhetorical technique is the repeated question regarding alternatives ("What do you propose instead?"), highlighting the lack of a response. Historical comparisons are utilized (the railways of the First Estonian Republic) to criticize political inaction.

The style is predominantly combative, emotional, and sharp, employing strong language (such as "taxed to death" or "spit in the face") and moralistic judgments, often labeling opponents as "bad people." It draws on both historical knowledge (Hammurabi, Solomon) and pop culture ("The Americans") to highlight themes of the rule of law and morality. The objective is to apply pressure and bring these issues into focus, utilizing legislative drafts as a tool for leverage.

The tone is highly combative, accusatory, and urgent, especially when directed at the Prime Minister and the coalition partners. Strong moral appeals are employed, presenting contrasting examples (the cancellation of cultural figures versus large Russian business deals) to underscore the government's hypocrisy. The style is direct, demanding a shift from mere moral judgments toward concrete legislative steps.

The speaker employs an extremely combative, emotional, and urgent style, utilizing dramatic language (such as pushing people "face first into the mud" and Estonia becoming "hell for its own people"). Numerous anecdotal examples and stories are used to bolster the arguments (a Swedish businessman, a personal incident in a store, the former factories in Pärnu). The speech includes a historical reference (Pastor Kelch's maxim) and addresses the Prime Minister directly, demanding the abandonment of dogmatic stances.