as you might notice, i'm talking a lot about implementation, because that's where my concern lies. it seems that, 16 years after lehman, implementation fatigue has started to set in. political commitment for maintaining financial stability is usually the highest when the collective memory of the last crisis is still fresh. when this memory starts to fade, there is the risk that financial stability is taken for granted. something that can be left to the bureaucrats, to the technicians. not least because there are so many other policy priorities to deal with for governments. but that would be a mistake. we do need the involvement of politicians, of lawmakers, because without them, it becomes even harder to implement necessary regulations. after all, financial stability is the foundation for almost all public policy. if financial stability is gone, as a government you can forget about the other policy priorities. you will spend most of your time drawing up rescue plans for an economy in free fall. so we should not wait for the next crisis. we also need commitment in good times, when the work to develop and implement policy needs to get done. this commitment is even more important in a world that is getting more fragmented, both politically and economically. i am concerned about our capacity to work together on cross - border challenges in such a world. during the global financial crisis, policymakers around the globe were able to respond swiftly and 2 / 3 bis - central bankers'speeches effectively. in a fragmented world, such a swift response could become more complicated. this could prove costly because the most important challenges to financial stability are precisely the cross - border issues that we can only solve if we work together. and to the financial industry i would say : rules that strengthen the resilience of the financial system are in your best interest too. some in the industry view regulation as a constraint, something that limits profitability and imposes undue costs. but it's just the other way around. financial regulation is not an obstacle, it is an enabler of sustainable, long - term growth. globally implemented regulation strengthens international financial stability, levels the playing field, and, in turn, enhances the confidence of your shareholders, clients, and counterparties. strong regulation is not a constraint on the financial industry, it is an asset. 15 years after pittsburgh, strengthening the financial system is an unfinished history. partly that comes with the job. the financial system is always evolving, so our policy also needs to evolve. but,

possible. this can occur through for example harmonized technical standards and systems, like the single euro payments area, or sepa. sepa became operational in 2014. as a result, the fragmented national markets for euro payments became a single, european market. the project involved developing common financial instruments, standards, procedures and infrastructure, through cooperation in the payments sector. two drivers of integration this conference ’ s theme refers to two drivers of payments integration : innovation and cooperation. however, in my view, another important driver for integration is legislation and regulation. perhaps it is even a precondition for integration, because reducing or removing national borders requires the legislator to take the necessary action. in the case of sepa, for example, it was the european commission which established the legal foundation through the sepa regulation, and other secondary regulations. cooperation is also vital for integration. the commercial and technical standards for payment instruments in sepa were developed through close cooperation between european banks. cooperation between central banks is of course also very useful. it involves developing effective policies and institutions, through for example staff training. this enables central banks to learn from each other. i am therefore delighted with the long - standing relationship between nbrm and dnb, and the resulting cooperation and knowledge transfer. integration and innovation now let me turn to the relationship between integration and innovation. is innovation a driver for integration? yes, to some extent. if an innovation is easily accepted in various countries, replacing other, older technologies or instruments, international differences disappear. internet and smartphone technology are great examples. they are relatively new and form the basis for common and new payment methods across europe. i will come back to this in a minute. yet, i think that there is also a reverse causality. in plain english, integration is also a driver for innovation, at least in the eyes of economists. when borders are removed and trade increases, new ideas and new technologies emerge, enabling creative entrepreneurs to turn these into new products. for payments in particular, having the same standards boosts innovation, which produces network effects. the entry of a new merchant or consumer increases the value of the network for all participants. when many people use the same internet payment method, for example, more e - merchants will want to offer this to attract more customers. and when these customers find the payment method convenient, they will tell others. this word - of - mouth advertising leads to more use of that payment instrument. this creates economies of scale, lowering the cost