– both at european as well as at national level – is enshrined as the first and fundamental objective of any intervention. 3. let me conclude. what we have achieved in terms of the architecture of the bu is astonishing but the entire project remains fragile. europe has stopped moving and currently stands in the middle of a very sensitive and unstable ‘ bridge ’. if, realistically, sufficient progress cannot be expected in the medium term to establish edis and fine - tune the existing framework, then let ’ s concentrate on preserving the great value of the project. 2 / 2 bis central bankers'speeches

elisa ferreira : from repair to vision - conceptions for a common beneficial and resilient financial architecture and institutional framework in the eu address by ms elisa ferreira, vice - governor of the bank of portugal, on the panel " from repair to vision : conceptions for a common beneficial and resilient financial architecture and institutional framework in the eu " at the " financial stability conference 2018 ", lisbon, 31 october 2018. * * * the setting up of the single rulebook in the european union ( eu ) and the launch of the banking union ( bu ) with its rules and institutions constitute a commendable success of the post - crisis financial sector reforms in europe ; however the lack of political will to complete the architecture seriously jeopardises its key benefits. recent cases highlighted what i would call an ‘ accountability conundrum ’. banks nowadays are mostly ‘ european in life but remain national in death ’. this means that, while supervisory and resolution decisions are mostly taken at european level, the ensuing consequences still lie with taxpayers at national level, with potential serious impacts on national budgets. as the ultimate guarantor of financial stability remains national, but with limited tools to act, this ‘ accountability conundrum ’ needs to be solved. this unstable balance that emerged in the eu prevents economic agents from fully reaping the expected benefits of economic integration. europe needs concrete plans going forward, and must address pressing questions on what is still missing to safeguard financial stability. absent a fully - fledged european deposit insurance scheme ( edis ) in the short to medium term, a plan is urgently needed for the interim period ( until the bu can be completed ). among the possible topics for debate, i would suggest : 1. first, the development of a specific institutional regime to address member states ’ concerns over the risks of potential failures of cross - border banking groups : host member states within the bu need tools to address financial stability risks arising from locally systemic undertakings ; the absence of such instruments currently hinders progress on issues such as : ( i ) the adoption of waivers on liquidity and capital, and ( ii ) the removal of options and national discretions ( onds ) which are in close connection, among others, with : the rethinking of the single point of entry ( spe ) / multiple point of entry ( mpe ) resolution models ; in particular, the generalisation of the spe model within the bu requires that both the concerns at group level ( home ) and