So we can’t just leave it there. •  That gives UK a massive incentive to achieve good outcomes in international standards for financial regulation. •  So far in this argument, so good – business and the authorities together pointing in the same direction. Ie business will happily live with what I’m calling ‘good’ standards provided they are applied evenly everywhere that matters. •  But two issues remain. First, business is frustrated by the time it takes to reach such international agreements. They want speed. They make the compelling point that they can’t determine their business models and plan their strategies until they know the regime under which they will function. •  The international community finds that hard. Contrast yesterday’s world of a small handful of central bank governors deciding bank-capital standards on their own: a world of G5 or at most G10. Today’s world is G20 plus. And, as capital markets have become more important, securities regulators are rightly also at the table – and finance ministries too given the social and political issues. The result is a big table. (FSB Plenary – c.70). •  By prioritising an international playing-field that is as level as possible and as sound as possible, speed is sacrificed. •  Second issue – some key policy discussions end up being away from home, away from the Westminster Parliament. Mainly global in fact. •  That global process is pretty transparent – consultative papers, speeches and so on.
We need to be clear about what we can do and what we cannot do; we need to operate consistently within our remit; and above all we must be sufficiently transparent to make proper accountability realistic. That is what trust requires, and we are in the business of trust – trust in the value of money. BIS central bankers’ speeches  5