##factory growth. it ’ s like blaming the thermometer when you ’ ve got the flu! the real problem of the last ten years has been the lack of clarity on the level of policy responsibility between national and european decision - making. this has created confusion for the citizens of europe. that, in fact, is the main challenge of the next decade. too frequently “ europe ” has been blamed for decisions taken by the member states. for example, only a few months after signing the stability and growth pact, some declared it “ stupid ”. others blamed that same pact for obliging them to adopt tough budgetary policies, rather than explaining that these policies were for the good of their countries and of future generations. people inevitably asked : if the pact is stupid, why did we sign it? and if it is indeed stupid, why do we have policies that comply with it? too frequently the european union has been asked to act on specific issues by the national authorities, but the latter have not given the eu the means and powers to do so. how many times have there been calls for a common energy policy by the very same authorities who were at the same time negotiating bilateral agreements with energy producers? of course, there have been other cases of similarly inconsistent or even contradictory behaviour. too frequently the institutional set - up of the european union has been criticised openly, and sometimes severely, by some national authorities or even other european institutions. how can the people of europe grow to trust the eu if the decision - makers at various levels question each others ’ competencies? the obvious example for me in this context is the ecb, whose independence and mandate have been repeatedly – and pointlessly – called into question over the past ten years. we can ’ t take up the challenges of the next ten years if we don ’ t build on the assets achieved over the past ten years. calling for more cooperation at european level, for more procedures, more initiatives threatens to compound the confusion that already exists in the minds of both ordinary people and policy - makers. for instance, in its emu @ 10 communication, the commission proposes that the eurogroup should strengthen its monitoring of the implementation of structural reforms. closer monitoring may help shore up a commitment to reform, but there is a real risk of further blurring the delineation of responsibilities. i do not want to suggest that everything is going fine as it is in the allocation of responsibilities and that only a clarification is needed. i just want

past as some member states opposed it. can it be revitalised in light of more recent developments? a choice has to be made, and it should be clear. ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude. economic and monetary union has recently celebrated its tenth anniversary. as a ten - yearold, emu is becoming less of a child and more of an adolescent. the trials of childhood were manifold : the creation of a credible central bank, the design of an effective and transparent monetary strategy, the distribution of new banknotes and coins, and the shaping of sound economic policies. getting any of these basics wrong would have had catastrophic consequences. yet emu has successfully overcome the challenges of its childhood, while withstanding the many external shocks of the last decade. the trials of adolescence are lurking ahead and will prove equally demanding. the continued success of emu will depend on how effectively these new challenges are addressed. thank you for your attention.