supervisory authorities during the crisis. however, we may want to examine today if there is a need to further intensify this multilateral cooperation, both in normal circumstances and in times of crisis. first, several ways to strengthen the links between authorities in normal times have already been explored and sometimes tried out in practice. future priorities for further developing financial supervision in the european union have been set out and several instruments to reinforce cooperation between authorities have been identified. at present, we need to further work on the implementation of these measures and to monitor their efficiency. secondly, with regard to potential improvements in the crisis management framework, let me first note that several observers had predicted that the shortcomings in our system would be striking in a crisis situation. similarly, the functioning of our crisis management framework has been tested in crisis simulation exercises on several occasions over the last years and many suggestions have been made to improve it. the crisis that we have been dealing with over the last few months, together with the generally satisfactory functioning of our crisis management framework up to now, obviously force us to take a fresh look at the various suggestions that were made to improve the framework before the crisis arose. however, they do not excuse us from keeping a critical eye on our framework. all suggestions relating to improvements in the supervisory and crisis management framework may at the end of the day call for consideration to be given to making some legal changes and re - distributing responsibilities. whatever changes might be needed, they should always ensure that we have a flexible enough crisis management framework to deal with any kind of crisis, especially as each one is different and has elements that can never be anticipated. and it is essential for authorities to keep the right balance between the allocation of responsibilities in the supervisory and the crisis management frameworks. these two key concerns should obviously remain in the back of our minds when we review the lamfalussy process today. concluding remarks to conclude, and before we start assessing the lamfalussy architecture, i would like to remind you what architecture is all about. in an early essay in the first century ad, the roman architect vitruvius defined the essence of his art as being the design of buildings meeting three different criteria. they first need to be durable and so should be strong, solid and based on sound foundations. secondly, buildings need to be functional and convenient for the people using them. thirdly, buildings need to be beautiful, and should raise the spirits of those who are living or working in them. so

, as you can see, architects need a mix of different abilities, a magic combination of art and science. thanks to this combination, architectural works of art have become a cultural symbol of europe over the years, as demonstrated for instance by the illustrations on our bank notes. similarly, a complex, but nonetheless useful, institutional architecture has characterised european integration. assessing this institutional architecture will require the same architectural skills as those originally needed to set it up. therefore, i would like to wish you today an open and constructive discussion combining both scientific method and the visionary perception that characterised some of the most influential european artists.