out differences in living conditions. germany has this in the form of horizontal financial equalisation among the federal states [ landerfinanzausgleich ], as well as transfer payments to the states of former east germany, which are financed by the solidarity surcharge [ solidaritatszuschlag ]. it may well be that one day the political will considers fiscal transfers between the member states of the euro area necessary and desirable. however, that would then require a change conclusions of the presidency, european council in copenhagen, http : / / www. consilium. europa. eu / uedocs / cms _ data / docs / pressdata / en / ec / 72921. pdf. see the opinion of advocate general cruz villalon on case c - 62 / 14, peter gauweiler, et al. and fraktion die linke im deutschen bundestag v deutscher bundestag ( request for a preliminary ruling from the bundesverfassungsgericht ( germany ) ) delivered on 14 january 2015, paragraph 38 ff. bis central bankers ’ speeches 21 – 22 june 1993, to the european treaties. there is no provision for a transfer union in the current treaty. and whether you like it or not, that applies to the front door as well as the back door. this is something which those who call for more ( financial ) solidarity must realise. more solidarity within europe in this sense would also require more european control. but we don ’ t yet have a “ euro area parliament ” with the democratic legitimation for this, or a supranational budget worthy of this name. at the moment i see correspondingly little willingness from national parliaments to relinquish their budgetary powers in order to centralise them at the european level. the flipside of this coin, however, is that member states, with their own national budgets, have disproportionately more individual responsibility. even without financial transfers, there must be reasons why it is more attractive for member states to be part of the monetary union than to stay outside it. in addition, they must be better off in the euro area than out. in concrete terms, membership of the euro should bring more stability and prosperity. in this respect, the monetary union has already taken considerable steps towards integration. but a common internal market and a single monetary policy alone is not enough to achieve this in the long run. with strict

me say in conclusion that i consider it essential to preserve, consolidate and reinforce the remarkable unity demonstrated by the international community in the crisis period. we were able to agree on the following major points. first, there was the consensus on the need to increase participation in the informal global governance framework to include all systemic emerging economies. this was illustrated by the g7 passing the baton to the g20 as the primary forum for global economic governance. second, there was consensus – spanning both emerging and advanced economies – in confirming, at the very moment the crisis was unfolding, that market economy rules are the most effective and efficient means to create prosperous economies and societies. third, there was consensus on working together to reinforce rules, regulations and standards in the financial sector with a view to decisively strengthening its resilience and improving the coordination of fiscal and structural policies within a framework for strong, stable and sustainable growth. this was no time for complacency. the unity of the international community made a difference. we avoided a depression, and the recovery began in the second half of 2009. this is still no time for complacency. what we need today is not “ wars ” of any kind, but a strong and renewed commitment to confident and resolute cooperation. together we must say “ no ” to protectionism and “ no ” to beggar - thy - neighbour policies. the international community can and must continue to make a difference by being united and showing a strong sense of medium and long - term direction. i thank you for your attention.