##i case illustrates, there is a further argument against over - dependence, namely that it's a two - way street. the dependencies go many ways, and thus the incentives to co - ordinate and co - operate are much larger. in this world, fragmentation would be positively dangerous. underpinning the extensive co - operation and co - ordination are international regulatory standards. they provide a core of assurance to support open financial systems. to be honest, some areas are ahead of others. the basel committee has made most progress, though it is essential that we see a consistent implementation of the so - called basel 3. 1 package. we have more to do in the various parts of the non - bank world, and the financial stability board is very much on the case. but this does not mean that in all jurisdictions the rules must be exactly the same. we are most interested in the outcomes. there will be differences to fit local markets, and again when that is done in a transparent and well understood way, it is sensible and fine. all of that fits within a framework of public policy where the basic objective of financial stability is common, and there should be effective frameworks established through international regulatory standards underpinned by trust and co - operation. to conclude, we must be alert to the pressure for fragmentation, both in the global economy and financial system. the costs that go with such fragmentation are real and undesirable. the better approach is strong articulation of a common public policy objective in terms of financial stability, accompanied by effective co - ordination and cooperation. these are not impossible ideals – we have real evidence of the system working. thank you. i am grateful to sarah breeden, lee foulger, karen jude, rhys phillips, danny walker and michael yoganayagam for helpful comments and assistance in helping me to prepare these remarks. 1 sasha mills speech at the isda derivatives and trading forum, 7 november 2023. 4 / 4 bis - central bankers'speeches

financial stability threat, which at the bank of england we dealt with via a market intervention. it has, of course, caused us to look at the regulatory standards in this area, and recommend substantially greater resilience, which is now in place. the point i want to draw out today is that responsibility for oversight of these funds rested both in the uk where they operated and in some eu countries, including ireland, where they are typically domiciled. i want to thank the central bank of ireland for the excellent assistance they have provided in tackling these issues. our strong working relationship has paid off. the work we are doing is no doubt important. three current priorities for both of us illustrate this well. first, we are both putting in place stronger resilience standards for ldi funds. second, we agree on, and both emphasise, the pressing need for action to implement the financial stability board's recommendations for enhancing the resilience of money market funds. and third, we are both committed to the review and, i believe, upgrade of the standards for managing risks in open - ended funds, where sharon donnery is coleading the global work. i take three very important lessons from all of this. first, strong co - operation and coordination is a much better approach than fragmentation. there is no reason to be restrictive when a much better alternative exists. second, i sometimes hear an argument made that the fallacy of this first conclusion is that no - one can credibly commit with certainty to this standard of co - operation at all times in the future. i reject this proposition. let's go back to the global public good of financial stability for a moment. the stakes are simply too high to throw away financial stability, and the global institutional structures now create the necessary commitment. 3 / 4 bis - central bankers'speeches the third argument is part of the co - operation and commitment point, but sufficiently important to draw out separately. i am going to be direct here – i usually am. it is said that there is an over - dependence on the uk as an international financial centre. by the way, dublin is a thriving international centre too, and that's good to see. the overdependence argument leads, wrongly in my view, to a belief that the dependency needs to be reduced. as i have already said, the responsibilities that go with a global public good argument point firmly against the logic of this point. but, as the ld