By Plenary Sessions: Evelin Poolamets

The rhetorical style is critical, skeptical, and pressing, utilizing strong negative metaphors (e.g., "we were promised an elephant and got a mouse," "a massive hole in the state budget"). The speaker relies heavily on financial data, risk analysis, and comparing government promises with reality to justify the necessity of halting the project. The government is accused of dishonesty and concealing the truth.

The style is sharply critical and combative, employing strong emotional and labeling expressions (e.g., "green racket," "fake science," "bottomless black hole"). Appeals are made regarding economic damage and the threat to sovereignty, accusing the opposing side (the liberal majority) of being detached from reality. Rhetorical questions are used to highlight contradictions.

The rhetorical style is formal, yet passionate and deeply concerned, particularly regarding rural life and small-scale beekeepers. A balanced approach is utilized, combining emotional appeals (culture, clean food) with concrete economic and ecological arguments. Criticism directed at the government is sharp, accusing them of lacking proper analysis and demonstrating an unfair bias.

The tone is predominantly formal, critical, and well-argued, employing logical reasoning and data in parliamentary inquiries and draft legislation (e.g., the increase in CO2 quota prices, the drop in the specific fertility rate). There is also sharp, personal criticism directed at Reform Party ministers, accusing them of arrogant behavior and denigrating female members of parliament. In the realm of tax policy, value-based rhetoric is utilized, recalling the tax principles established by the right-wing government.