By Plenary Sessions: Andres Metsoja

The style is formal and structured, incorporating both emotional appeals (such as condemning the denigration of the state) and detailed logical argumentation concerning the bill's procedure and technical aspects. The speaker is critical and demanding, stressing the importance of substance in the midst of a heated debate and raising rhetorical questions regarding accountability.

The style is analytical, questioning, and critical, emphasizing logical argumentation, the requirement of proportionality, and transparency. It repeatedly uses rhetorical questions ("Excuse me, but what exactly are we doing then?") and refers to the requirements set by the Chancellor of Justice regarding the thoroughness of the legislator. The tone is skeptical towards the government's alleged objectives, accusing them of creating a "veil."

The tone is critical and pressing, posing sharp questions to the Prime Minister regarding priorities and anomalies. The style is logical and fact-based, utilizing specific figures (e.g., 69 million versus 100 million) and contrasting the situation in Estonia with Finnish practices. Instead of relying on emotional appeals, the emphasis is placed on economic sensibility and strategic importance.

The style is formal and direct, presenting a critical question to the Prime Minister. The speaker emphasizes local anxiety ("in areas that have caused anxiety") and appeals to logic, asking for strategic consistency. The opposing idea is presented as a possible "small observation" or "confusion," which indicates moderate skepticism.