mitigating this risk requires incurring costs. it also requires effective, agile governance, robust risk management and control frameworks, and strong detection and crisis response mechanisms. the evidence from our increasingly intrusive it risk supervision indicates that neither the spending nor the governance and control arrangements are adequate to satisfactorily mitigate these risks. each of these topics, business model development, governance, risk management and culture could form the basis of a speech in their own right, and i will expand on each of these topics in future speeches. more importantly, they will strongly feature in our work plans for 2018 and beyond. regulatory developments in the 10 years since the onset of the financial crisis, multiple reforms have sought to address the root causes of the crisis and other issues. indeed, there continues to be reforms of the reforms. we are embedding recent changes ( such as solvency ii ), and implementing further changes, notably mifid ii5 and psd ii6. it is both clear and unsurprising that there is some regulatory change fatigue in the system. moreover, memories are beginning to fade, even while we continue to address the legacy issues that remain from the crisis. consequently, the clamour regarding the costs and restrictions associated with this regulatory reform has started to grow. i would strongly caution against the pendulum swinging back, undoing the work of the past decade. as andy haldane, the bank of england ’ s chief economist recently remarked : “ history is replete with examples of regulatory standards being diluted or dismantled in the name of enhancing the dynamism of the financial system and the economy. to follow this course unthinkingly would risk repeating regulatory mistakes from the past7. ” it is obvious that given the scale of the financial crisis, radical and far - reaching reform has been required. it is also unsurprising that, given the scale of reform, not everything has been calibrated perfectly and further evolution is required. indeed, in the same way that the financial system as a whole and its component parts continues to change, so the regulatory regime needs to adapt and evolve. but while this continued evolution is required, significant easing should be resisted. the economic and social costs of ineffective regulation are well demonstrated and far outweigh the costs of regulation today. the more important task for us now is to continue to drive for greater convergence and consistency across jurisdictions – and in doing so ( with apologies for the mixed metaphor )

, the european banking authority acts as the setter of regulatory standards. the single supervisory mechanism ( ssm ), complements the eba and provides the framework for authorisation and supervision across the banking union. in this context, ecb banking supervision will take the final decision on the authorisation or licensing of any significant institution in any member state in the euro area. at the heart of ssm is close co - operation between the ecb and the national competent authorities and staff in the bank work closely with our colleagues in frankfurt. this ensures that there will be a level playing field for the supervision of banks across the banking union regardless of country of authorisation. for insurance, the european insurance and occupational pensions authority ( eiopa ) aims to strengthen oversight of cross - border groups and promote coordination in the european union supervisory response. it also ensures greater harmonisation and coherent application of rules, and better protection of consumers. for securities markets, the european securities and markets authority ( esma ) mission is to enhance investor protection and promote stable and orderly markets. the modalities of brexit make the architecture of the esfs ever more important today. conclusion to conclude, brexit will have considerable implications for europe, for ireland and the irish economy, for the central bank, and for many of you here today. in my remarks i have explored some of the macroeconomic, financial stability and regulatory considerations currently at play. a common theme across each factor is uncertainty. from a macroeconomic perspective, the conditions of the uk ’ s exit and the terms, timing and impact of the trade deal will be a key determinant for assessing the macroeconomic, financial and currency market effects. however, at present, considerable uncertainty remains as to the potential modalities of the deal, and hence to our macroeconomic assessment. turning to financial stability, new business lines and new firms brings new opportunities, new challenges and new risks for the economy. these factors need to be considered in the context of european or global financial markets. as with everything surrounding brexit, we must be flexible and prepare for all eventualities. yes, there may be some employment benefits here in ireland from firms that may choose to establish here. however, given the domestic economy ’ s exposure to the uk, we expect the overall effect to be negative and material. the regulatory future is equally complex and uncertain. in the meantime, the central bank will continue to fulfil its responsibilities to deliver assertive risk -