, taken by itself, undermines the maastricht framework and its core principle of national fiscal responsibility. so what ’ s the next step now? essentially, i see two possible paths. first, we can achieve a permanently stable governance framework if we push back the element of joint liability. for example, mechanisms could be put in place to ensure that member states themselves really are liable for unwelcome developments in their countries. this would give the no - bail - out clause renewed credibility and ensure that member states with less sound public finances also have to pay higher interest. second – and this would undeniably be a bold step forward – a fiscal union could be created. this would shift much of the responsibility for fiscal and economic policies to the supranational level, thus restoring the balance between action and liability. a fiscal union such as this would be the biggest step in the integration process since the 3 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches introduction of the euro. however, the transfer of sovereign rights to the european level which this would entail would prove impossible without extensive changes to primary law and votes throughout the member states. politicians alone – not a central bank – can decide how action and liability can be brought back into alignment in the euro area. and if politicians opt for the path that leads to more centralised fiscal policy, appointing a european finance minister or establishing a joint ministry of finance would be two possible ways of effectively establishing control over european fiscal policy at the european level. politicians ’ unwillingness hitherto to embrace further steps towards a more centralised fiscal policy might have something to do with the major political obstacles i mentioned earlier on. for my part, i sense there is little political enthusiasm to push for “ more europe ” in fiscal policy matters at the moment, because it is naturally extremely difficult for a country to renounce sovereignty over its own budgetary policy. if things stay as they are, the only way forward is to tackle and rectify the flaws and contradictions of the maastricht framework – a regime that remains in force as hitherto and is built around the idea of individual national responsibility. what this means, above all, is preventing unwelcome developments in the economic and fiscal policies of individual countries from posing a threat to financial stability in the currency area as a whole. after all, this was the reason why the european partners had to throw a financial lifeline to cyprus, greece, ireland, portugal and spain during the sovereign debt

) and communication protocols ( e. g. iso / ftam ) as well as the standard general procedural arrangements and legal frameworks are examples of how such objectives can be achieved. as far as procedures relating to applications are concerned, there is no doubt that the banking industry deserves credit for standardisation issues being tackled enthusiastically and successfully. this has often been done in close cooperation with the central banks and the european banking associations ( e. g. the ecbs ). i hope that the european central bank will also take part in this in future. today ’ s event suggests that it will. i think it is important to refer here, too, to the industrial standards that support our business and that have become essential pillars of the systems we use : there is no doubt that swift, which is probably de facto the only globally accepted payments standard, is the main one to mention here. no less effective, however, are the respective national standards in each country, for example, the din standards of the deutsches institut fur normung and, on a world basis, the international standards, for example, the internationally accepted iso standards of the international standardisation organisation, which are being incorporated into national standards. i would like to draw your attention in particular to the internationally standardised data transfer via iso / ftam protocols and electronic mail by means of the iso / osi x. 400 standard for message handling systems. these systems are also used in the german gross and net payment systems. when supplemented by the protocols of the tcp / ip family ( transmission control protocol / internet protocol ), they will play a “ translator ” role between the business applications under the different it conditions of the various central banks in the future communications network of the escb. thus, we already have an excellent set of instruments and suitable means of achieving standardisation. so what is still missing in practice in cross - border payments in europe? what else can and should be done? there have been complaints about the time required to execute payments and about the transparency of procedures used in retail payment systems. implementing the transparency directive of the eu commission will possibly help here. in the standards relating to applications in this payment sector, however, we have a large number of procedures which still confuse the user and which, generally speaking, are relatively inefficient. if i now add electronic money on chip cards or network money to my list, i think the absence in many cases of internationally applicable standards is precisely what is hampering the spread