Somewhat paradoxically, bearing in mind how slow progress has been, the objectives of attracting institutional investors, improving the allocation of resources, introducing a safe European asset and reinforcing the international role of the euro are more prevalent than ever. Specific progress, though limited, has at least been made. For instance, most work in terms of the EU-wide harmonisation of investment and saving products has now been agreed, including the definition of a pan-European individual pension product. 9/10  However, the complexity of the project calls for greater regulatory and fiscal harmonisation efforts, in particular regarding the taxation of capital. As a case in point, in the EU there are still more than 90 types of forms in different languages for tax refunds. This might seem rather unimportant but, often, these administrative formalities are a major obstacle to investment by market participants. Against this background, mention may be made of the report published in October 2019, during the Finnish presidency, by the so-called ´Next CMU group´8. This comprised highlevel representatives of industry who, at the request of the EU finance ministers, evaluated the progress of this project, proposing a series of measures in order to re-launch it.9 Conclusion. Allow me to conclude. Throughout its history, the EU has moved towards a greater level of economic and political integration that has provided clear social and economic benefits. Yet the pace of this movement has not been constant.
2  See, for example, Reinhart and Rogoff, 2011 A further breakthrough relating to the Single Resolution Mechanism was in December 2018, when the European Stability Mechanism was recognised as backing for the Single Resolution Fund, both for solvency and liquidity. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/5-presidents-report_en.pdf 3  5/10  The EDIS as the third pillar of the Banking Union. I believe the following sentence captures in a nutshell a foundational problem of the euro. A common currency should be the reflection of a single financial system; accordingly, the same euro deposited in different banks should have the same backing and confidence, irrespective of the euro area country in which each bank is domiciled. In this respect, the start-up of the SSM and of the SRB is a significant achievement. But we should acknowledge that while deposits do not have identical backing throughout the Banking Union, we cannot consider the edifice to be complete. It is an acknowledged fact that we continue to lack one of its three fundamental pillars: the European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS). Any construction needs at least three pillars to ensure its structural soundness. Likewise, I believe the EDIS would contribute to increasing the stability of the Banking Union, particularly at times of stress, which is when the resilience of structures is tested. The EDIS would have a forceful impact on citizens’ confidence.