By Plenary Sessions: Martin Helme

The rhetorical style is analytical, demanding, and critical, particularly regarding the government's responses. The speaker poses a large number of detailed questions concerning specific calculations and forecasts, emphasizing logical arguments and the absence of data. The tone is concerned and accusatory, asserting that the government "does not have the faintest notion" of the consequences of the accession.

The tone is extremely combative, critical, and accusatory, expressing sympathy for the Estonian people plunged into poverty and the companies driven into bankruptcy. Strong rhetorical questions are used to challenge the logic behind the government's actions and the motivation of the voters who support them. The style is direct and emotional, focusing on highlighting the economic damage.

The rhetorical style is extremely combative, accusatory, and emotional, utilizing sharp and personal phrases such as "outrages," "laughing in our faces," and "brazenly." The appeals are primarily ethical and moral, focusing on the lack of political accountability and the feeling of impunity. The government's responses are described as "pseudo-substantive chatter" and "hocus pocus."