the rules is more than 100 pages long. it contains numerous exceptions to the rules and broad discretionary scope for decision - making. in practice, this has led to a dismantling of the crash barriers. they can be moved almost at will, and their steering effect has been eroded accordingly. it is now necessary to anchor the quantitative limits more firmly by making the rules clearer and more transparent. discretionary scope should be used sparingly and exceptions should be limited to severe crises. an expenditure rule could help countries pursue their mto more consistently. by contrast, the european commission ’ s proposals go in a different direction. it proposes that it negotiate country - specific fiscal targets for the coming years with each individual member state. universally applicable rules would effectively be abolished. in addition, a wide range of aspects are to be taken into account, including economic policy objectives. the commission ’ s proposals are not a suitable way of further developing the common fiscal framework such that is characterised by greater transparency and binding force. instead, there is a danger that fiscal limits will be softened, and that the process of determining them will become almost entirely opaque. the reduction of high debt ratios could thus be considerably delayed in line with the rules. anyone travelling on winding roads knows that weak crash barriers are dangerous, especially under rough external conditions. we therefore need a more robust set of rules. however, another thing is also clear : ultimately, the european level cannot enforce compliance with the rules because the member states have the last word on their finances. one desirable solution might be greater liability and risk sharing. but this would have to be followed up with powers to take fiscal action, because actions and liability need to be aligned. to this end, more national sovereignty would have to be transferred to the eu ( european union ) level. this is something for which i do not see the political will at the moment. with that in mind, it is a good thing that the common debt for nextgenerationeu is a one - off and clearly limited. we also welcome the fact that the commission is not proposing any increase in eu ( european union ) debt as part of its green deal industrial plan. by the way, this is not a rejection of joint eu ( european union ) projects. it is for such purposes that the eu ( european union ) budget, which is financed by way of national contributions, is available. if there is a general will for new joint projects, the contributions should be adjusted accordingly. there is no need for

and, owing to their networks and size, they have immediately become relevant players. payments are now seen as a sector of strategic importance : to the future development of the european financial sector on the one hand, and to european sovereignty in an increasingly global digital world on the other. today, cross - border payments can often only be made using international card schemes. while there are a number of successful national payment systems in europe, such as the girocard in germany, there is no single, pan - european solution based on european infrastructure. this creates dependencies in an area that counts as critical infrastructure. europe should also be able to stand on its own two feet here. the digital euro project could play a part in this. in the eurosystem, we are currently considering making central bank digital currency available to individuals and enterprises. this would be the digital counterpart to analogue euro banknotes. in an increasingly digitalised world, it could help central bank money retain its role as the fixed anchor of our monetary system. no decision has been made about the digital euro thus far. if it is introduced, it would be an added option in cross - border payments that could contribute to efficiency gains and reduce existing dependencies. that would increase european sovereignty. and, in the longer term, it could pave the way for innovative business processes in the european economy. 3. 3 free movement of capital the free flow of payments is also a prerequisite for the free movement of capital in europe. so far, we have made too little use of the economies of scale offered by european integration. a single european capital market could both strengthen the forces of growth and contribute to the stability of the financial system. to achieve this, it is important that enterprises are able to more easily obtain financing across national borders, especially equity. the french central bank governor francois villeroy de galhau and i wrote a joint article pointing out the huge importance of the capital markets union. the digital and green transformation of the european economy will require massive investment. these transitions have to be financed primarily through private capital. we need the capital markets union to help mobilise this capital. that ’ s why we called for a stronger collective will to make it happen. there are enough concrete starting points. the action plan presented by the european commission in 2020 contained 16 actions. for example, the securitisation market could be revived by overhauling the regulatory requirements. this would bridge the gap between bank financing and the capital market, delivering multiple