transfer union ”. transfer union would mean oneway subsidies from some governments to cover other governemts ’ deficits. this would not be consistent with the underlying principles of the eu. as mr. trichet has put it, “ it is fully recognised that this economic union must be one where countries that wisely follow a virtuous economic path are rewarded, and those that pursue unsustainable policies have to internalize the costs of their actions. ” i fully endorse this view. politics we have now moved well into the area of politics. let me say a few more words about my own country in this context. finland was in the political spotlight recently. this happened because the financial support to portugal became a focus of the electoral campaign during the parliamentary elections in april. parties sensed – or feared – that voters would not easily accept continued support operations to stabilize the finances of the weaker euro area countries, and the issue became heated. there were even worries that finland would prevent eu support for portugal. bis central bankers ’ speeches this happened although the euro has enjoyed relatively strong support in finland. according to the eurobarometer survey conducted last november, 78 % of finns supported the common currency and less than 20 % were negative about it. and of course, finns have been much more positive about the euro than the other scandinavian nations, for instance. for finland, joining the monetary union meant two things : a seat at the table where decisions are made, and the promise of more stable money. we wanted to avoid a repetition of the traumatic currency and banking crisis of the 1990 ’ s. we put our trust in the euro as a guarantor of monetary stability. after the fiscal crisis erupted a year ago in greece, when support had to be provided to that country and to other countries in difficulty, there was a sense of disillusionment in finland. people remembered how finland exerted a huge effort to put its own house in order after the economic crisis of the early 1990 ’ s, and then qualified for monetary union. having gone through that, many people ask, why should we now support others who apparently have not followed the commonly agreed rules? and what was the responsibility of banks and other investors who had carelessly underestimated the risks involved in lending to these countries? we may understand the reasons for such frustration. but i for one do not accept any narrowly nationalistic or anti - eu undertones which sometimes accompany the expressions of that frustration. responsible politicians in

does not mean that people suddenly lose their capabilities. in the future, we see more active and demanding aging population requiring services online as they have used to get them during working life. with experience these people may be more risk sensitive and they are able to demonstrate their needs, but they are no way hindering services development, rather the contrary. it goes without saying that the younger population considers the internet and mobile services as selfevident. people today are used to being online all the time and they are used to travelling according to their wishes. in my youth, a trip from helsinki to stockholm was special, nowadays young people choose where they want to travel or study globally, and people have summer cottages in thailand. in these circumstances it is very difficult to justify why payments need excessive bureaucracy or time. international payment card companies have succeeded to create a global acceptance network benefiting the card users, though authorities in several jurisdictions have pointed out problems in their fee structures. the single euro payments area, sepa, harmonizes european payments : payment services directive harmonises the rights and liabilities of payment service providers and their customers and sepa standards harmonise the technical environment of payments. the migration to sepa may be a burden, but in the long run, it is a source of efficiency and should be seen in that light. bank of finland approach to payment services bank of finland has a longstanding view that the role of central banks should remain rather limited in retail payment systems. central banks as overseers and regulators should promote competition friendly environment for retail banking and payment services as well as ensure that the systems are safe, reliable and efficient to the society as a whole. central banks can act as catalysts for change and improvements. however, retail payment related services should not be provided by central banks as this may distort the competitive environment. bis central bankers ’ speeches we have pointed out and expressed five principles against which we evaluate the development of payment services. firstly, we wish to promote technical efficiency making payments cheaper, faster and more secure. technology is not a goal itself but a tool. often in adopting new technologies in network industries we face the chicken and egg problem : when is the market ripe for new technologies and when the technologies are ripe to benefit the industry and its customers. sometimes here, the central bank ’ s catalyst role may be needed. the second principle for payment services is non - discrimination. there are people who may have limited capabilities to use internet or mobile services. strive for efficiency must