It is essential that the industry keeps considering the issues and expressing its ideas, but I am afraid that unrealistic expectations can only lead us to an agonised debate which could polarise views and even hinder the progress that we need to make now in the crucial and urgent work of implementing Basel II, and international accounting standards. As I mentioned earlier, these were the more prudent principles that I wanted to mention. But, as the 19th century English writer Charles Caleb Colton said, “there is nothing more imprudent than excessive prudence”. Therefore, let me add a further four principles that go more in a more progressive direction. Firstly, I think that the EU needs to be ambitious, and set an example. I am convinced, and have said in many of my recent interventions, that the EU can and should go further, deeper and faster than the wider international community in finding greater consistency, convergence and efficiency in banking supervision. We should especially take advantage of the opportunities presented by Basel II and the fact that we already have a body of single market legislation and a long history of supervisory cooperation on which to build. And if we can demonstrate that progress is possible among 25 countries that are still rather diverse, others will have more confidence to push ahead also. Secondly, we should recognise the legitimate concerns of the industry. More efficient supervision is a necessary - although not sufficient - condition for a more integrated market.
There is no need for me to explain the dichotomy that arises when we have, on one hand, an industry that is becoming increasingly internationalised in nature and, on the other, a supervisory framework that remains predominantly based on national responsibilities and accountabilities. In a context where banking groups increasingly take decisions and manage risks on a global basis, inconsistencies or differences in the regulation and supervision across the countries in which they are active may create compliance costs and inefficiencies. Furthermore, adverse developments in one bank are more likely to have financial stability implications for several countries. These issues are certainly not exclusive to the EU. But the existence of the EU project adds an extra dimension, which brings challenges, responsibilities and also opportunities. Progress has been made in building the single market in financial services, but we are not there yet. In some segments of the financial markets, such as retail banking, there is a long way to go to achieve a fully integrated market. And recent experiences in relation to some cross-border acquisitions seem hardly compatible with the spirit of the single market. We face, therefore, several challenges: to safeguard the efficiency, effectiveness and consistency of supervisory action in more global and integrated financial markets; and to reduce the remaining obstacles to cross-border finance, both in terms of cross-border consolidation and in the provision of products and services. Some of these national differences have developed over a long period of time and go beyond the prudential or supervisory sphere.