By Plenary Sessions: Martin Helme

The rhetorical style is direct, procedural, and interrogative, focusing on logical and legal details. A slight critical tone ("rebel/revolt") is employed regarding the constitutional amendment, but this is immediately followed by a specific question demanding the opposing party's viewpoint.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, critical, and accusatory, employing strong language such as "insane climate policy" and "climate communism." The speaker poses numerous rhetorical questions to highlight the lack of transparency and the illogical nature of the government’s decisions. He attempts to discredit his opponents with claims that funds are being handed out to "their own cronies" and "wind lobbyists," and uses an emotional appeal regarding the threat of Estonia's bankruptcy.

The rhetorical style is highly combative, accusatory, and emotional, utilizing strong and evocative expressions (e.g., "steamrolling," "mafia-style back-scratching," "bullshit"). The speaker accuses opponents of lying and incompetence, attempting to paint a picture of an abnormal and fraudulent system. The tone is ironic and pushes the boundaries of formality.