By Plenary Sessions: Jaanus Karilaid

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, highlighting the government's lack of vision and poor work culture. Although logical and evidence-based arguments are presented (referencing explanatory notes and guidelines), the tone is emotionally charged, especially concerning economic uncertainty. Figurative language is employed, accusing the government of dishonesty and the state's long arm reaching into people's pockets.

The rhetorical style is demanding and critical, emphasizing the need for logical argumentation and highlighting the absence of practical examples to justify the draft bill. The tone is formal and analytical, demanding that the issues be spelled out clearly and unambiguously. Ultimately, the style becomes sharply confrontational, characterizing the legislative process as a "peculiar stage."

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and deeply concerned, employing judgments such as "shamefully little" and "negative bureaucracy." The speaker relies both on logical arguments (referencing Madis Kallas’s statements and the coalition agreement) and on emotional indictments of the government’s indifference. The questions are direct and posed as a challenge to the prime minister’s inaction.

The rhetorical style is urgent and critical, leveling accusations against the minister for indecisiveness and fear regarding Russia's reaction. It employs strong contrasts (pitting the invocation of church fathers against the fear of Russia) and rhetorical questions, demanding swift action and the introduction of legislative amendments even before Midsummer's Day. The tone is predominantly confrontational and demanding, cautioning against political uproar that might escalate into a security threat.