 I'm not sure. I can follow that. Thank you very much for inviting me to do your departing interview, your swansong interview. I'm not sure it's my microphone working. And somebody turn it on. Is that small room? Ah, that sounds better. As we heard from President Draghi, you've accomplished a lot in your five years in this role. Starting something from scratch and building it into a very credible regulator. Despite, I think it's fair to say, there was some skepticism about the enormity of this task when you took it on. What do you think has worked best? What are you proudest of in that new build, if you like? Well, I think I'm proud of the fact that a large number of people, including the banks that we supervise, recognise that we are tough on fair or fair on tough. I think the two things go together. You cannot be tough if you are not fair. And I had a very nice surprise in a recent conference that was organised by one of supervisory board members in Portugal where there was this kind of interview between bankers and the journalist making the interview tried to suggest to see what would be the reaction that maybe it was a bit more complicated to be from the south than from the north or eastern countries. And one of the bankers said, never, ever I felt discriminated. So for me, that's really the best compliment. And it was so strong. I quote really what he said. Yes. I think I've heard that as well anecdotally from people as well. It's a consistent regulator. If you had to be self-critical, not of yourself personally, but of the shortcomings that have proven perhaps unexpectedly to be the case, what do you think isn't working so well? What remains to be achieved? Well, first of all, before I move to this part, I would like to say it's a lot about myself today. But in fact, you don't do something like that alone. I had the best possible vice-chair with Sabine Lothan Schlogger, and we have a lot of excellent cooperation with the staff in the NCA's. About 2,000 staff in the NCA's are working only for the SSM. And of course, the ECB staff has been extremely helpful. Now, if I am a little bit disappointed by certain things, well, I would like the banking union to move faster. I think now is the time to demonstrate more solidarity. It's a pity that everybody recognize almost everywhere that we have reduced significantly risk, but we don't see the benefit of it yet. We need the backstop for the single resolution fund. We need the deposit guarantee scheme. I think it's the moment. There can be conditions, but they have to be achievable, predictable, and it has to be delivered when the conditions are met. And if that were to happen, what would be the result? What do you think is lacking at the moment in terms of the net outcome? I think the legacies of the crisis such as ring fencing, which are still in place, would be this bundle. I think it will be a very good push to the needed consolidation of the banking system in the euro area. A number of the banks we supervise are not earning the cost of their capital, and that's not sustainable for long. So there is a need for some consolidation. It can be domestic consolidation. We have nothing against that, but it's also itselfful to have cross-border consolidation, to have a single euro-area banking system, really strong European banking system that would serve the European citizens and help funding the economy. Do you think it would also help deal with broader macroeconomic political instabilities like we're seeing in Italy, for example, at the moment? Well, personally, I think so. In a recent conference in Berlin at the end of October, it said that we are fooling ourselves if we think that we are better off by postponing solidarity. I think if there is a crisis, and there will be a crisis sometime, we don't know when, we don't know what will trigger it, if there is a crisis, we will take the bill at the European level. Of course, it would be such a catastrophe to do it. So better be equipped and have this solidarity in place with the conditions that go with solidarity. I quoted popular wisdoms that says that the who pays the piper calls the tone. So I think you are better equipped at the European level if you are paying for the resolution fund for the deposit guarantee scheme. You can put conditions. If I could ask you one other awkward question, and I appreciate it, you probably won't want to talk about individual banks in any detail, but it would feel rude not to mention that I've come to Frankfurt and Deutsche Bank is probably in its worst situation for some time. To what extent does that worry you as a regulator, the fragility of what was once one of Europe's biggest and most successful banks and certainly remains as one of its most systemic banks? Well, I will definitely not comment on any individual bank for sure. I would comment on the fact that a number of banks are in turn around really and turn around takes time. It's a moment where they may look like less strong than we would wish, but it's not necessarily the case because solid reforms are being made behind the curtains. It takes years of efforts and it has started some time ago for all those banks, even before the SSM was established. So there are a number of banks that are engaged in the turn around. If they go on with their efforts, they will see the sun at the end of the tunnel. I am quite sure. I hope you're right. Mr Draghi welcomed Andrea Enria as your successor. You've talked about one of the legacies that you'll be handing over to him, i.e., seeing through the completion of Banking Union. But what else are you leaving in his intray for him to find? Well, I am offering him stuff that he will appreciate very much, the things to the role played by the ECB. We were a tiny start-up in a powerful incubator and to be hosted by the ECB permitted us to recruit the best supervisory brains in the whole Europe. Not only Europe and passport is enough. We have candidates from the 20 and staff from the 20 countries, hopefully not to be 27 next but soon, but it will happen, I guess, way or another. So yes, very strong support from the staff, both in the ECB and in the NCA's. And, of course, supervisory board that, in my view, is functioning very well. We assess each other, the functioning of the supervisory board regularly, and we did one such self-assessment recently. An implementation plan was discussed and decided yesterday. It is just waiting for the robust time from the new chair. It will be one of the first things Andrea will have to see. Look at the conclusion of the self-assessment and decide whether he is fine with the proposed measures to be taken. You talked about the desirability of cross-border mergers and acquisitions. As if you've made this point several times during your role, you see it as an important signal, I suppose, that there is genuinely a single market across the Eurozone. How much does that concern you that there are in Europe now no banks of a scale to compete with the American giants, and not to mention the Asian giants? Is Europe being left behind, and why does that matter? First of all, I don't believe that it is the job of supervisors to decide what are the good mergers. I think markets, bankers, investors are the ones that have to decide what are the good mergers. But the role of supervisors is very important because they challenge the business model of the new entity. They assess whether the resources, leadership, internal control are up to the challenges of the new entity, and most of the time puts some conditions. It's important because once they accept the consolidation, the merger, they give the authorization. They are the owner of possible problems that would pop up, so they have to be cautious. This being said, I think, and it's important that I repeat it in Germany in particular, coming from a country where we have a very centralized banking system, because we had a crisis in the 90s and it happens that all the small banks, medium-sized banks disappeared in this turmoil, that we need a diverse European banking system. We need small and big banks. We need cooperative, mutual and listed banks. We need universal banks. We need specialized banks. Among all those different banks, we need indeed some European champions. The time for national champions is totally gone. We need to have European champions. A few, not many, that are able to successfully compete with the global CIFIs of the US and Asia. To serve the economy, to serve in particular in this country, the big corporates or the medium-sized corporates that are so good at exporting, so they need to have the banks that will support that. And foreign banks, if you like, American banks, which do that as well, are not to be so trusted? Are you putting words in your mouth? It's a competitive market. I am not deciding who are the good actors, but at least European corporates should have a choice. That's as simple as that. And it's important to have a European choice in your view? Well, they should have a choice. We are an important region of the world. We play a big role in all these international committees, the discussions at international level. We are a large part of the large corporates exporting, so there should be one or two, or I don't know how many European champions. European corporates should have a choice. Are there good examples of banking mergers that you would point to? Because coming from Britain, I'm afraid we're rather infected with the memory of RBS being destroyed by an attempted merger with ABN Amro. Are there good examples that you would... Well, I would say that the mergers that we have authorised so far did well. We were first a challenge, so that's not a confidential issue. We had to decide whether an Italian merger with Popolaire Milano on Popolaire should move forward, and that was creating the third bank in Italy. So we did our job. It's true that the bankers were not quite accustomed to be treated like that. They thought they were coming, putting their wishes on the table, conditions, and we reacted with our own concerns and conditions. And the first reaction was to say, okay, you have between 11 and 15 conditions, you will take the tenth one. The others forget about it. Well, they understood that it's not a negotiation. They take it or they leave it, because as soon as we give an authorization, again, we are the owner of the problem if there is a problem. So if they want to merge, they have to make sure that they are in a reasonable framework with the capacity to address the challenges. Execution risk is always big. So you need leadership, you need execution capacity. And it's the rule for all the banks that are coming to see us to merge all the time. And I think that's the only way of doing a good job. We can discuss the condition. If we hear the banks, if we are wrong on certain elements, we can recognize that we are wrong. That's not difficult. It will happen. But we have some kind of collective wisdom. When Sabine and I agree on what is the good way forward, frankly, I think people are in good shape. We come from different countries, different origins, different experiences. I think that's a good test. Now, it would be remiss of me as a Brit coming here to interview you, not to mention the word Brexit. The president already has, so I feel I can as well. There is certainly a lot of confusion around what's going to happen. We're less than a week away from a key vote on the deal that's been negotiated. It feels like that deal is not going to happen. Who knows what will happen beyond that. But from your perspective, from the perspective of the European banking system, how important is Brexit or how much of a risk is it to the banking system? Well, first of all, as a citizen, I would say that's a very sad event to have a member of the family divorcing from the family is something very sad. I am very European minded and that makes me sad. For the rest, we will see. Supervisors like to be prepared for all circumstances, all possible outcomes, and I can tell you that we are prepared for all those circumstances. Whatever happens, the UK PRA, for example, the UK authorities in the financial sector will always, at least for my lifetime, for a very long period of time, will be very important for us. We have banks, SSM banks that are doing business in the UK and will continue to do business in the UK, even if it's in a different form. We have a number of banks that are relocating from the UK, not necessarily British banks, but banks that were using the UK as a point of entrance into Europe. So, as a supervisor, we are a balanced supervisor because we are both a host and home supervisor. We have to be here as well, fair, because what we do to others can be done to our banks. So we have to be balanced. If we believe that something is good for the banks coming to the continent or to Ireland, it's probably good for all banks when they go outside as well. So it was, again, a very sad event, but the opportunity that would have come only later without the Brexit to think a lot about what we would like, the international activity of our banks look like. It was the structure, the safety nets. It was the opportunity of an in-depth thinking about international activities of the banks, the structures that are needed, and so on and so forth. Very good. Well, I'm conscious that I'm pushing time here, but just one last question for you if I could. If you think about once you've left the organisation and maybe another five years has passed, what would you hope that might have been achieved at the end of that period? You've talked about banking union. Let's assume that that's been delivered and that's in place. What would you hope to see in the broader landscape? I would like the euro area to be totally and really single jurisdiction and perceive as such, not only by the members, by the rest of the world as well. And therefore the banking system to be far stronger than it is today and maybe dominating the world? No, well, just being safe and sound and ready to go through withstand possible turmoil and crisis. Just that is already, in my view, good. Well spoken as a true supervisor. Thank you very much, Danielle Rwy.