“The dilemmas underlying the debate on the Savings and Investment Union seem to keep resurfacing. To put it simply, the fundamental question is this: will we remain stuck in debate, or will we move on to action? Will we keep repeating that we agree with the Savings and Investment Union, but then put forward our national reservations—the “yes, but”? Or will we move forward with implementation?
Two stories come vividly to mind in these discussions, because both, each in its own way, share common characteristics—whether we’re talking about cross-border bank consolidation, the digital euro, or the elements of the Capital Markets Union.
I will return to these topics at the end of my speech, but let us first turn to the technical issues.
We support the European Commission’s proposal. We need to strengthen the powers of ESMA (the European Securities and Markets Authority), because, frankly, we cannot do the same thing 27 times. And especially as technological developments accelerate, this will become increasingly difficult.
Can we retain capabilities at the national level? Yes, we can. We have already done so through the European Central Bank’s Single Supervisory Mechanism. It is a very useful example. We have implemented this in the past: central supervision can be combined with decentralized implementation and enforcement. Overall, the degree of supervision can be differentiated based on operational needs.
There are objective criteria we can use: cross-border activity, operational significance for the market, the need to ensure a level playing field. These can guide supervision on a case-by-case basis. And I thinkBertrand Dumont mentioned earlier a very interesting framework for finding common ground.
Moving now to the two historical examples, to conclude:
The first is the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. The United Kingdom is no longer at the table, but this is a very telling example—Ireland knows this well—where the United Kingdom chose systemic efficiency over national protection. We’re talking about tariffs, an issue that is once again relevant globally.
This move—that is, choosing economic efficiency and dismantling barriers and protectionism—unleashed the economic potential of the British Empire at the time. It takes political courage to achieve economic transformation. Believe me, I come from a country that has proven this on a national level.
And it pays off socially, politically, and economically.
The last story—and the first time I’ve mentioned anything from ancient Greece in my remarks at ECOFIN—is from the Persian Wars.
When the Oracle of Delphi said that “wooden walls” would save the city, some interpreted it literally: let’s actually build walls around Athens. But the more open-minded people of the time—and specifically Themistocles—interpreted the “wooden walls” as ships. And that is how the famous Battle of Salamis was won.
The lesson is clear: do you open up or close yourself off? Do you choose to tear down the walls and unleash the potential, or not?
At the end of the day, such discussions are more philosophical than technical. Do we want to be the generation of politicians who simply protect the same things over and over again, or the one that unleashes the potential of this Union?
I think the question is rhetorical.
Thank you.”