Session Profile: Priit Sibul

The speaker adopts a strongly critical stance regarding the government's actions in providing state aid to Nordica through KredEx, focusing specifically on the opacity and inefficiency of the decision-making process. The focus centers on the contradiction between the government's current actions and its earlier promises (not to provide additional funds), which suggests a performance-based critique. Particular emphasis is placed on the question of why the decision was made to "reanimate" Nordica with 1.5 million euros, despite being fully aware of the company's poor financial condition. The political position is investigative and demands accountability.

The speaker demonstrates comprehensive knowledge regarding Nordica’s financing, the role of KredEx, and state aid regulations, referencing specific amounts (3.5 million, 1.5 million euros) and dates. This expertise relies on citing official documents and statements made by officials, such as the remarks of Chancellor Keit Kasemets and Deputy Chancellor Salmu’s comments recorded in the council protocol. Technical terminology, including "state aid rules" and "the special anti-corruption committee," is used to demonstrate this knowledge.

The rhetorical style is probing, aggressive, and demanding, using direct questions to pinpoint responsibility ("Whose decision was this, exactly?"). The speaker intersperses detailed, fact-based arguments (dates, protocols) with sarcastic remarks, comparing the situation to a Kreisiraadio sketch and referring to 1.5 million euros as something that is not "just 3.50 tucked into a hoodie pocket." The overall tone is critical and expresses outrage.

The speaker is active during the Riigikogu information hour and refers to their work on the special committee against corruption, where the Nordica issue was discussed. Reference is also made to statements the Prime Minister made during the information hour last November, which demonstrates a consistent pattern of using parliamentary forums to scrutinize government decisions. Participation in meetings and the analysis of protocols are also mentioned.

The main adversary is the Prime Minister and the government, who are being criticized for their Nordica funding decisions and for concealing relevant information. The criticism is procedural and carries an ethical undertone, questioning why funding continued when it was already known that "the money was burning." The intensity of the attacks is high, suggesting an attempt to evade responsibility and implying dishonesty.

Insufficient data.

The focus is on national issues, particularly the funding of the state-owned enterprise (Nordica) and the state financial institution (KredEx). There is no regional or local focus.

The speaker voiced strong opposition to the use of state funds to reanimate the failed company (Nordica), emphasizing the necessity of fiscal discipline. The criticism centers on questions of state aid regulations and economic viability, casting doubt on the rationale for providing the 1.5 million euro loan.

Insufficient data.

The primary focus is on parliamentary oversight and holding the government accountable, which is carried out through the Question Time and the special committee against corruption. The objective is to ascertain who was responsible for the final installment of Nordica's financing. Specific new bills are not mentioned.