of shared responsibility within a partnership of european courts. it respects the division of tasks between european and national legislation and can take the views of the european court as the basis for its judgement. conversely, the european court of justice will observe the limits of its jurisdiction and not intervene in the remit of the federal constitutional court. legal and political cooperation between the public administrations of the member states and the institutions of the european union functions when we respect each other and trust that we will act in the interests of our respective mandates and in accordance with the applicable law. this trust forms the basis of cooperation between member states and between member states and the european union and its institutions. it is based on the democratic values we share and which are explicitly laid down in the copenhagen criteria for new member states. we should preserve this trusting relationship – which supports europe as a diverse, complementary whole, founded on the european treaties. bis central bankers ’ speeches

managing financial crises and alternative courses of action proliferate. politicians, whether or not they have the authority over the decision to intervene, want to satisfy themselves that intervention is justified and what is proposed is the right way forward. often the process of arriving at a consensus takes time and meanwhile the problem worsens and the effectiveness of the actions to be taken is eroded. i believe therefore that those responsible for the maintenance of monetary and financial stability should have the necessary emergency powers to do what is required independently and promptly. there is of course the need for transparency and accountability when exercising these powers to ensure appropriate checks and balances. at a time when many jurisdictions and international forums are reviewing the financial regulatory structure, the ability or inability of the financial authorities to take unusual action, independently and promptly, to protect the public interest should be addressed. my fourth and last issue is an involvement. this concerns the extent to which the authorities should be involved in the development of the financial infrastructure. i am sure you are aware of the huge amount of public money spent in all jurisdictions in the development of the physical infrastructure, building highways, bridges and airports to take people and goods from one place to another safely and efficiently, thus facilitating the conduct of economic activities for the benefit of all. authorities, however, seem to devote only disproportionately small amounts of resources to the development of the financial infrastructure to move money and financial instruments from one entity to another safely and efficiently for the purpose of enhancing financial efficiency that promotes economic prosperity. to some extent, the development of the financial infrastructure can be left to the market, with swift being a sterling example of private sector initiative in this area. but many of the important elements of the financial infrastructure are public goods, the provision of which, in a form that serves the public interest best, may not be financially viable for the private sector. furthermore, the conflict i mentioned earlier often comes in, affecting the willingness or the enthusiasm of the financial intermediaries to develop and use a financial infrastructure that promotes financial efficiency. i believe this is one of the main reasons why x in t + x in the settlement of some financial transitions is still a number other than zero, or why t + x is still not replaced by rtgs dvp even though the technology to do so has been available for some time. very simply therefore there is a case for the authorities to get involved, as a developer or a service provider, when a private sector solution that is in the public interest