, then we paid too much attention to monetary growth. it seems that money shouldn ’ t matter for monetary policy. if you read the german press, well the story was different. some said we communicated too little. others said we communicated too much. when you are flanked on both sides, then you must be somewhere in the middle of the park. i conclude from this that we must have positioned ourselves more or less right. indeed over time, i think that the “ ecb watchers ” have increasingly come to understand and to respect our monetary policy. we have also become better at explaining it. it is an ongoing process. but things are on the right track. most importantly, we have done our duty. we have maintained price stability. and we have done it in a pragmatic fashion, with a steady hand. there were many who feared that in the early years of emu, the euro area economy might be a sacrificial lamb on the altar of credibility. according to this view, the ecb would raise interest rates unnecessarily to prove its anti - inflation credentials. the facts do not bear this out. a number of shocks have hit the euro area economy over the past few years. but we did not over - react. we held our nerve. even in its infancy, the ecb showed itself to be a mature central bank. i am proud to have been its president these past five years. * * * i do not retire without some regret. there is a lot that i shall miss. i shall miss my colleagues in the executive board. i shall miss my colleagues in the governing council. i shall certainly miss the regular meetings and contacts i have with many of you, especially in the eurogroup. i have to say that i was touched when i received your invitation to this special dinner. and i am touched that so many of you have taken the trouble to travel to venice to say goodbye. since this is the first time that a president of the european central bank has retired, i have no way of knowing if this is just standard protocol, or if it is something more. i hope it is not just that you are eager, as you said in your invitation, to “ facilitate my departure ”. i prefer to think that it reflects the warm relationship that has been built up among us during the past few years. i remember when it was first proposed to establish a eurogroup, or “ euro - x ” as it was then called

. and i remember that some people said that such a group would be a threat to the ecb and its independence. frankly speaking, i also had some doubts. i was proved wrong. as i have since said in public on various occasions, the eurogroup meetings represent a “ golden opportunity ” ; a golden opportunity for dialogue ; a golden opportunity to be open, to be frank, to be honest, to criticise, and to listen. if you liken emu to a house, then we are its family, and the eurogroup is the dinner table. it is where the family members get together to tell each other what they are doing, to listen to each others advice, and learn to live together, as they must do, responsibly. each member who joined this family did so on the understanding that his new house would be built on two stable pillars ; not just a sound monetary policy, but also sound economic policies. they signed up to a package, a clear set of rules, including a pact. this is a contract not just among governments but a contract with every single citizen of the euro area. it is on the basis of this contract that they have accepted the loss of their monetary sovereignty. and it is on this contract that the confidence in our new currency, not just of european citizens, but also of markets and of those on the outside looking in, is based. if you break this contract, this confidence will be lost. i acknowledge that these are not easy times, that conditions are adverse. but the difficulties that some of you now face were not entirely unforeseen. not unforeseen when the pact was signed. not unforeseen when the conditions were more favourable. you were warned. the rules were not designed just for the good times, but also for the bad. the difficulties that some of you now face do not provide grounds for tinkering with the rules. they call for their implementation. the rules are there to help not to hinder efforts to put the house in order. they should be allowed to do what they were designed for. otherwise i fear the pact will unravel, the contract with the people will be broken. without the right foundations, you cannot build a stable house. i hear some of you say that the house needs more than stability. it also needs growth. of course you are right. stability and growth go hand in hand. but for growth there is also a strategy, a good