By Plenary Sessions: Maris Lauri

The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, particularly when characterizing the opponents' draft bill as a "botch" and accusing them of demagoguery. Logical and fact-based arguments are employed, referencing the history of legislative amendments, committee discussions, and procedural details to demonstrate the lack of consideration in the opponents' proposal. The tone remains formal, yet becomes emotionally charged when criticizing the opponents' motives.

The style is predominantly argumentative, defensive, and at times sharply aggressive, especially towards the opposition, who are accused of spreading lies and sowing panic. Strong moral appeals are employed (conscience, feeding the enemy) alongside pointed metaphors (crocodile tears, playing the fool). The speaker attempts to balance these emotional accusations with logical arguments concerning the inevitability of tax increases and fiscal responsibility.

The style is initially formal and detailed (during the committee presentation), but it shifts to become sharp and occasionally personal during the Q&A session, particularly when addressing criticism and interruptions from Isamaa. It employs both logical economic-theoretical arguments (such as loans, revenues versus costs) and emotional appeals (the importance of security, avoiding fear-mongering, and belief). Frustration is repeatedly voiced regarding the background noise in the chamber and the opponents' lack of respect.