i am happy that we have come so far today. such a project can only become reality if the city authorities, too, prove their commitment. so, i would also like to express my gratitude to lord mayor petra roth and the different departments of the city of frankfurt, especially the urban planning department, for the unstinting work and support they provided from the time of the purchase of the site to the architectural competition and the urban development plan, which was developed in parallel to our own planning, and also with the issuance of the building permit in may 2008. this is no time for complacency. we still have many challenges to face, and we have to make sure that the construction work proceeds smoothly. i am looking forward to seeing the restoration of the market hall and the rise of the office towers. i have full trust in all of you who are involved in the project working for our new headquarters, and in your expertise and knowledge to ensure the successful finalisation of our building – within schedule and budget, of course, as we are responsible for using our resources effectively and efficiently. i have advised our team, the new ecb premises project office, to monitor the works carefully and to keep a close eye on the quality, on the scheduling and on the costs of the project – the budget has to be respected. this is essential. today, i want to thank my dear colleague on the executive board, lorenzo bini smaghi, who has overseen the project remarkably well for the executive board over the past few years, as well as gerald grisse and thomas rinderspacher in their capacity of project coordinator and project manager – also as representatives for the entire team – for the excellent work achieved thus far, the development of the project within the expected and required quality and costs estimate and for the successful tendering of the construction works. i wish all of those who will either be continuing to work or who are just starting to work for our new building all the best and good endeavours!

##tilist in our outlook. as the city ’ s long history shows, that has never been the outlook of people in the city ; rather it has been to trade freely and compete and grow new markets, to face outwards. we see that today for instance in the embrace of fintech. the uk ’ s financial markets and its financial system are therefore open for trade to all who will abide by our laws and act consistent with our public policy objectives. the question then arises of what sorts of safeguards and rules should apply to that trade? i mentioned earlier that one of the offspring of bretton woods was the gatt, subsequently the w to. the focus of activity was for some considerable time on trade in goods not trade in services. both goods and services trade depend on robust standards and the regulation of those standards, but trade in services is almost entirely about such standards. this trade has been substantially supported by the global standards to which i referred earlier, and which has allowed countries to defer to each other in terms of the prevailing rules and regulations. this means deferring to the rules of others to protect our citizens or firms when they choose to do business there. there is no doubt in my mind that the work done on global standards since the financial crisis has made this process easier to support and safer and improved the level of trust we have in each other. the european union has pursued the approach of so - called equivalence, which on the face of it allows for deferring to other authorities where appropriate. the eu ’ s framework of equivalence in financial services is a patchwork across many different pieces of financial services legislation, taking different forms in different sub - sectors, and in some not present at all. nor do the equivalence measures prescribe how the judgement should be made. as is well known, the post - brexit equivalence process between the uk and eu has not been straightforward. it is, of course, two distinct processes – one for the uk to recognise the eu as equivalent to the uk, and one for vice versa. the uk has granted equivalence to the eu in some areas, but the eu has not done likewise to the uk. in a few areas – involving central clearing and settlement – there has been agreement by the eu to extend temporary equivalence to the uk, recognising, i think, the clear risks to financial stability that would have arisen had this not been done at the outset. it would be reasonable to think that a common framework