the eurogroup ’ s “ package ” and its president, such a pragmatic method of small and parallel steps could help to move forward again. none of these steps is sufficient, but each of them taken separately would be welcome. or if you prefer a restaurant analogy, call this proposal “ a la carte ” rather than a “ set menu ” … bearing in mind that at the end our lunch must be just as substantial and significant. ii. four pathways towards reigniting the banking union building on this approach, i would like to share with you four possible and broader pathways towards a stronger banking union. 1. moving beyond home / host issues. on this topic, i would like to start by issuing a wake - up call on the effective implementation of cross - border liquidity waivers within the union, as prescribed by the european legislation. they remain far too limited in practice. the discussions on the completion of the banking union are already at a standstill ; we need, at least, to fully harness the existing measures! supervisors must allow the effective implementation of liquidity waivers provided for in the level 1 text. in this regard, the fact that the ssm published guidance mentions the need, in a first phase, to comply with 75 % of the liquidity requirements at the individual level in order to grant a cross - border waiver creates an additional obstacle. and we shall not give up on the extension of intra - group waivers to mrel and capital requirements. let me add three possible ways of making progress : we could first think of a system of workable guarantees between the parent company and its subsidiaries. backed by the common supervisor, they should provide enough reassurance to host countries, so that they could support waivers in local subsidiaries. another step would be to ensure preferential treatment for intragroup exposures within the banking union. there should be no cases where there is a difference between the treatment of domestic and cross - border intra - group exposures, be it for liquidity or capital requirements. to go further, in parallel with the aforementioned options, we also need to explore the possibility of relying more extensively on the branchification of subsidiaries located in other banking union countries. this was the core of andrea enria ’ s statement yesterday. the branch would then abide fully by the home country ’ s prudential rules. the example of nordea demonstrates the feasibility of such an option. i am well aware that it raises substantial questions, for banks themselves – for their governance

context of fragmented supervision. beyond the need to mitigate any future crisis, the achievement of the banking union remains of the utmost importance, for both micro and macro reasons. at the micro level, moving further towards a true single banking market through cross - border restructuring is a matter of strategic autonomy. genuine pan - european banking groups could operate more effectively, raise their profitability thanks to scale effects and better face up to foreign competition, especially from the united states. europe is clearly losing momentum and competitiveness here : the market share of the six major us investment banks in europe towards their six major european competitors has increased from 44 % to 58 % in the last seven years. moreover, larger groups could invest more in the key challenge of digital transformation : as most of the investment costs are fixed, size is a decisive advantage. but not only the largest, all other institutions will benefit from the increased depth of the market, allowing to reap the fruits of their competitive advantages in a larger market. at the macro level – and i say this as a central banker –, banking union would decisively enhance private risk sharing within europe. the political discussion and energy remain primarily focused on public stabilisation mechanisms, such as a possible common fiscal capacity. let me stress that private stabilisers are just as important and efficient, and less divisive. banking union would enable, in conjunction with progress towards a capital market union, a better 1 / 4 bis central bankers'speeches channelling of our abundant savings through a genuine “ financing union for investment and innovation “. how to move forward again. the first obvious fact is that we should neither relax now that the banking crisis is mostly over, nor wait for the next crisis to act. it is precisely because we are not in a crisis situation that we should move forward now. first, we have spent too much time and energy on protracted discussions on prerequisites and pre - conditions, such as a full edis, itself pre - conditioned by sovereign de - risking. second, we should not focus on the creation of new instruments and their financing, but start by making existing ones work better. third, in order to move beyond political divisions, we need to abandon the sequential approach in which the issues are discussed one after another, so that the smallest obstacle can bring the whole process grinding to a halt. i would like to call for simultaneous, parallel movements on several fronts and to broaden the scope of possible action. while welcoming the ambition of