, also the recovery is on track to overcome the crisis. europeans, for all our differences, have many values that we share more closely than even close allies such as the united states. our social model ensures adequate healthcare and workers ’ rights that are absent elsewhere. we value highly human and civil rights ranging from gender equality, data protection, to the condemnation of torture, including the rejection of capital punishment. the protection of these values and rights relies on the vigilance of the legal professionals here in this room and elsewhere. this is even more important vis - a - vis a reality of extreme and obsessive forms of nationalism. the eu has also increased personal choices. the ability to travel, work and live across borders has been enhanced. the european health insurance card permits european citizens to obtain healthcare wherever they are. 1. 5 million people, perhaps including some of you here today, bis central bankers ’ speeches have completed part of their studies in another member state as part of the erasmus programme. more than 15 million eu citizens have moved to other eu countries to work or to enjoy their retirement. this wider range of options increases people ’ s wellbeing. these reasons, and the other positive aspects of membership, have been drowned out in debate by concerns over migration and the large wave of refugees from troubles in the middle east and elsewhere, the impact of the crisis, disaffection with high levels of unemployment – especially youth unemployment, and a perceived lack of accountability and legitimacy of the eu institutions. i fully recognise that europe in its current state is not perfect. the crisis has shown that economic and monetary union is incomplete, and further work is required, particularly in the areas of banking and credit markets. in order to function democracy requires that citizens can hold decision - making accountable at the level at which these are taken. but today we can only elect and sanction at the national level, while decision making is widely done at the european level. therefore, we have to enhance the decision - making process at the european level through appropriate democratic control measures and more direct election and sanctioning features. the solutions to these issues are not simple, and reasonable people may well disagree on their form. this forum is an ideal place to debate what laws, rules and institutions we need to put in place to strengthen the integrity of the union. i promised earlier that i would give you something to argue about tonight! i believe the vision of a united europe is worth striving for. to make this vision

important thing, in contrast to the previous and other growth cycles, is that it is growing without an increase in loans and without a real estate bubble. with lending growth that is below nominal gdp and a current account surplus in the balance of payments. as long as these two things continue, the spanish economy will keep growing faster than the rest. the recommendation, which is also valid for portugal, greece and ireland, and even for italy, is this : stabilise the banking sector and the credit markets. and maintain competitiveness. then you will do better than average. 3 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches the public message is quite clear. are there more discreet messages in private? no, none. i say the same thing in public that i do in private. have the ecb ’ s non - standard measures run their course? no. we can still increase bond purchases or lower interest rates further, which means that we still have the same tools available. what is happening is that the secondary effects are becoming more tangible. and each measure has less of a return. i look at the effects, and these can vary greatly. i am worried by risk taking in the asset management sector against the background of low interest rates. it is a matter of concern for me. banks are now better capitalised, they have more liquidity, and they are much safer than they were. but they face low profitability, which is a problem. supervision is centralised and is more suitable than when it was the remit of national authorities. but in the area of asset management and investment funds, what we see is that, in a low interest rate environment, their investment strategy always moves towards increased risk, in the sense of assets with potentially greater returns and greater risks but that are less liquid. and there is also more leveraging, not to the extent seen in the united states, but still more than before. and the supervision in this sector is not comparable with that in the banking sector. there is a risk. if they are asked for units to be paid out they have to do so within two or three days. i see a potential risk of liquidity imbalance. that is what worries me the most at the moment. and, while it may not technically be a secondary effect of monetary policy, because its causes are structural, i am concerned by the banking sector ’ s low profitability. are you in favour of changing or widening the ecb ’ s mandate? or of defining more