The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union in 2012 for having “over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe” attested to the success in achieving this original goal. I believe that the goals of ensuring peace and promoting integration and economic development are in fact related. As the World Trade Organization rightly reminded us, the trade war unleashed during the Great Depression contributed to the outbreak of the Second World War. In this respect, one very positive consequence of trade between nations is that it contributes to transforming “rival” nations into partners, who share interests instead of having conflicting interests. Undoubtedly, since the foundation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, economic and political integration in the EU has attained a most notable level. However, the process has been neither linear nor gradual. Over almost 7 decades of history, the European project has witnessed long periods of calm – where little or nothing remarkable happened – punctuated by “transformative periods” that have contributed decisively to its development and to shaping its current form. Normally, these deep transformations have stemmed from processes involving reflection and negotiations, conducted in a more or less orderly fashion. 3/10  Introduction of the single market and the euro For example, the start-up of the single market was the outcome of lengthy negotiations that began officially in 1985.
Also, the greater degree of risk-pooling in the euro area would contribute to aligning financial responsibility with the pan-European decision-making process, which has already been set in place in the areas of banking supervision and resolution. The current situation is such that the ultimate backing for ensuring deposits in a failed institution depends on national institutions, while the responsibility for supervision and resolution falls on other pan-European institutions. Shortly after the financial crisis broke, Mervin King ironically pointed out that international banks tended to be global in life, but national in death. This quote would appear to still be applicable in the euro area. In a genuine banking union banks should be European, both in life and in death. As you know, the debate on the EDIS was rekindled in November last year owing to an article5 by the German finance minister, Olaf Scholz, in which he advocated its implementation. This was something which, in his own words, “was no small step for a German finance minister”. The German proposal actually referred to the introduction of a European reinsurance scheme rather than a fully pooled EDIS, and it was moreover subject to various conditions. In any event, the debate clearly remains open and differences persist among the European partners. But I hope and wish that, as on previous occasions, we can forge a consensus allowing us to complete this basic third pillar, introducing a truly common and, therefore, fully pooled EDIS. European banking consolidation and integration.