By Plenary Sessions: Maris Lauri

Economic views are strongly oriented towards fiscal discipline, demanding budget balancing and the avoidance of debt burden. It supports the implementation of spending limits, which could be linked, for example, to nominal GDP growth. It deems necessary both the reduction of expenditures and the increase of revenues to prevent economic instability and avoid placing a burden on future generations.

It supports financial discipline and a high level of risk mitigation, which is reflected in the requirement for stricter governance structures within crypto companies, particularly when handling client assets. It is prepared to increase the maximum rates for the Financial Supervision Authority’s supervision fees to ensure the institution has the capacity to carry out its new responsibilities. It favors fiscally prudent solutions, thereby avoiding the creation of a costly and complex automatic data transmission system.

Economic views strongly advocate for fiscal discipline, viewing large deficits as a source of uncertainty that drives up interest rates and stifles investment. Support is given to entrepreneurship, with an emphasis on innovation, risk appetite, and reducing the regulatory burden (specifically, permit processing). State intervention should be restricted to addressing market failures and supporting the "valley of death" between science and business, favoring financial instruments (such as guarantees and sureties) over direct investments.

Economic considerations support strengthening the financial sector's stability and operational resilience through the adoption of European Union law. This points to a regulatory approach focused on reinforcing the financial market and ensuring compliance with international requirements.

We support strict fiscal discipline and budget balancing, demanding both expenditure cuts (including limiting indexed costs) and the identification of new revenue streams. We favor asset taxation (specifically, a motor vehicle tax) and call for the swift elimination of the tax hump to improve the overall tax structure. Furthermore, the necessity of reviewing the expediency of European Union funds and the additional costs arising from co-financing is highlighted.