Keynote speech by IMF Acting Managing Director David LiptonAt the Bretton Woods: 75 Years Later – Thinking About the Next 75 ConferenceHosted by the Banque de France
Introduction
Good afternoon! Thank you, Governor Villeroy de Galhau, for convening such an eminent group to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Bretton Woods Institutions.
I know Christine Lagarde was looking forward to addressing you today. But once again the IMF is in a time of transition. Fortunately, we are accustomed to that.  A key theme of my remarks today is that the IMF is an institution built to adapt to change.
Don’t worry — in Christine’s honor, I will be sure to quote from one or two historical figures.  
I am especially pleased that two former IMF Managing Directors, Jacques de Larosière and Michel Camdessus, are with us today. I served under both early in my IMF career. Two men who know quite a bit about change at the IMF.
Despite 75 years of history, the Bretton Woods Institutions have aged gracefully. Our collaboration is as strong as ever. I would like to thank David Malpass and Roberto Azevedo for continuing our excellent relationships.
Speaking of famous partnerships, those of you who have seen the most recent edition of the IMF’s Finance and Development quarterly may have noticed a conversation Madame Lagarde had with John Maynard Keynes.
In this imagined meeting, Lord Keynes and Madame Lagarde enjoyed a chat about the Fund.
He was glad the Fund has successfully adapted to many challenges over the years and, most of all, that our commitment to pursuing economic and financial stability in a multilateral and rules-based setting has held firm.
What if we could hop in a time machine — perhaps borrowed from Keynes’ friend H.G. Wells — and leap forward 25, 50, or even 75 years ahead from the present? What would the world and the IMF look like?
I would hope that Lord Keynes would still recognize us — promoting global growth and stability and adapting to the needs of our members. That forward journey is what I would like to discuss with you today.
But first, let us briefly consider the past.
The Past 75 years
The architects of Bretton Woods were deeply influenced by events between the two world wars, when multilateralism and the liberal international order broke down amid protectionism, the malfunction of the gold standard, and competitive devaluations.
The implosion of world trade deepened the Great Depression and ultimately gave fuel to fascism, communism, and war.
But in the aftermath, lessons were drawn. There was a new-found appreciation of how much national and global economic interests were interconnected.
The founders at Bretton Woods resolved that economic development and global financial stability are necessary conditions for peace.
In the words of Queen Elizabeth II, they “built an assembly of international institutions to ensure that the horrors of conflict would never be repeated.”
It was the original multilateral moment.
We know the results. Tremendous gains in human wellbeing — life expectancy, educational attainment, child and maternal mortality. Global GDP per capita is five-fold higher than in 1945. Over one billion people breaking free of poverty. And billions more reaping the mutual benefits generated from trade.
I have been proud to spend much of my career at the institution that has been central to this story.
Over the years, there has never been a Bretton Woods II, yet we are a very different institution than at our founders’ time. So how did that happen?  It is because we continuously adapt to the changing circumstances around us.
Lord Keynes would have been pleased to see the IMF pivot from the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates to the era of flexible rates.
And how we addressed the Latin America debt crises, starting during the tenure of Jacques de Larosière. 
Then how we helped to transition economies emerging from communism and enabled many finally to join the Fund; and how we have addressed what Michel Camdessus dubbed the 21st century crises — those that arose from the explosion of cross-border capital flows.
As we look to the next 75 years, the IMF will need to continue to adapt. That is already well underway.
Let us consider what we may face in the decades ahead.
First, how shifting economic and financial power will affect the role of the Fund.
Second, how technological change will transform economies, creating new opportunities and policy challenges, including in financial services.
Third, how new threats to multilateralism will test whether the Bretton Woods Institutions remain relevant.
Major Shifts in Economic Activity
Let me first turn to the ongoing shifts in the global economic landscape.
Since those 44 country delegations met at Bretton Woods, the IMF has grown and now has 189 members, almost the entire world economy.
That means while we can address issues on a global scale, the roles and interests of our membership are also changing.
The rise of China and other economies fundamentally alters the global landscape. As emerging market and developing economies grow and incomes converge, the share of advanced economies in global output is expected to fall from more than one-half to about one-third over the next 25 years.
Aging populations in the advanced economies will gradually consume savings even as younger countries need to finance investments. And in the not-too-distant future, rising life expectancy and declining fertility rates likely will bring the issues of aging to the entire world.
This will have profound implications for global trade and capital flows.
The hubs of economic activity will shift over the coming decades. New financial centers will grow in importance. New reserve currencies may eventually emerge.
Throughout all that, it is our duty to maintain an international monetary system stable and robust enough to facilitate the economic adjustments accompanying these transitions.
Free trade, flexible exchange rates, and non-disruptive capital movements are essential ingredients for a thriving global economy. That is why the role of multilateral institutions — and especially the IMF — will be more relevant than ever. If we continue to adapt.
Fortunately, our founders had the wisdom to embed in our governance a quota-based system. They recognized the illusory logic of one-country one-vote for an organization like ours.  Over our history and on into the future, this approach allows governance to adjust to the rising prominence, interests, and responsibilities of fast-growing members. Many international organizations do not have this built-in flexibility and find that some members feel they lack the influence they deserve.
Yet the Fund’s governance must continue to evolve further. For that to happen we must remain a quota-based institution.  And we must reckon with the fact that our formulae have not fully kept pace. We cannot expect to retain the global reach and resources that we need unless countries gaining in economic importance and ready to take on commensurate responsibility gain appropriately in their say at the Fund.
Similarly, we have to continuously align the Fund’s tools and policies with these changing economic realities. The inclusion of the renminbi in the SDR basket a few years ago demonstrated our ability to change with the times.
The bottom line is this: as economic power becomes more diverse and diffuse, retaining a focus on common challenges will become more difficult. So, the IMF’s fundamental role as global convener, trusted advisor, and financial firefighter will become even more important in the days ahead.
Adapting to New Technology
But what about the other changes in the global economy?
Technological advances offer enormous opportunities to accelerate productivity and lift incomes. But they also lead to structural changes — creating some jobs while displacing others.
Lord Keynes himself warned back in the 1930s about the possibility of “technological unemployment.” But he believed it would lead to a high-income world where people would choose more leisure time over work.  
This turned out differently. People are anxious that constant technological advances — think about artificial intelligence — will threaten their jobs and incomes. I will come to the future of work in a moment. Let me first address a different dimension of technology — innovation in financial services.
What we call ‘Fintech’ offers the potential to significantly increase efficiency and transparency in the financial sector. It poses challenges for established players, and regulators trying to address new sources of risk.
There are very real downsides to these developments, including significant threats from cyber-attacks and cyber-criminals. Yet, we are on the cusp of a transformation that could bring enormous benefits.
By fostering competition, we can help re-orient the financial services industry closer to better serve the real economy and foster job creation.
Look at Fintech’s capacity to end financial exclusion for the 1.7 billion people in developing countries who have no access to banking.
Much has been said about the impact of mobile banking in Africa, a continent that needs to create 20 million jobs a year in the decades to come, just to keep up with population growth.
That is why, together with the World Bank, we developed the Bali Fintech Agenda, a framework to help our member countries take advantage of innovation, but also better cope with the new risks.
One aspect of particular relevance has been the nascent development of central bank digital currencies, and the possible emergence of privately-backed “stablecoins” for digital payments. This was highlighted by the recent attention given to Facebook’s Libra. These new instruments aim to do for payments what the internet has done for information: make transactions secure, instantaneous, and nearly free.
Yesterday we published a new paper that highlights the benefits, risks, and regulatory issues that are likely to emerge in the years ahead with digital currencies.
The benefits are clear — ease of use, lower costs, and global reach. But what about the risks?
We have identified several: the potential emergence of new monopolies, with implications for how personal data is monetized; the impact on weaker currencies and the expansion of dollarization; the opportunities for illicit activities; threats to financial stability; and the challenges of corporates issuing and thus earning large sums of money — previously the realm of central banks.
So, regulators — and the IMF—will need to step up. We need to create an environment where the benefits of this technology can be reaped while the risks are minimized.
This is what I mean when I talk about an IMF that is always adapting. When a challenge affects our members’ economic well-being, we must be ready to be there.
Tackling Threats to Global Prosperity
While we adapt to technological transformations, we cannot lose sight of the other pressing concerns.
Our world is experiencing a broader set of changes that are contributing to a breakdown of trust and social cohesion, especially in the advanced economies. Trade and globalization — along with technology — have reshaped the economic map, and the fallout is front and center here in Europe, as well as in the United States:  rising anger, political polarization, and populism. We are at risk of what one could call a reverse Bretton Woods moment.
Part of the problem is the rise of excessive inequality. This is both a national and a global challenge. Although poverty rates have declined worldwide since 1980, the top-tenth of the top one percent worldwide has garnered roughly the same economic benefits that have accrued to the bottom 50 percent.
Moreover, for many developing countries, convergence with high-income countries has stalled. Just four years ago, we estimated it would take about half a century for low-income countries to reach advanced economy living standards. If global integration falters, it may take much longer.
Some see an inherent flaw in capitalism. I do not agree. Capitalism rewards risk-taking. It has been the engine behind so much of the success we have experienced. But it is an imperfect system in need of a course correction.
We must prove that the benefits of globalization outweigh the costs and that integration can help to address our shared challenges. But right now, in many areas, we are losing that argument. So, we need a roadmap. Where can we start?
First, we can use fiscal policy to help address inequalities. This has been a part of the economic toolkit for many years, but the Fund recently developed a framework for social spending to help our member countries in the years to come.
While we help countries raise the revenues needed for future spending, it is essential to ensure fairness and a level the playing field. That means that in the realm of global corporate taxation we must close loopholes, forestall profit shifting, and avoid a race to the bottom.
A related point. We need to fight against illicit financial flows and money laundering because corruption undermines trust in all facets of society.
Another important priority is modernizing the international trade system, including in services and e-commerce. This will help reduce the trade tensions that threaten to undermine global growth.
When it comes to global growth, every country should empower women. Back at Bretton Woods, the role of women was limited to secretarial support. Much has changed since then, thank goodness. But about 90 percent of countries still have legal barriers to female economic participation. Realizing the massive potential of women is an economic no-brainer and must be a priority.
And last — but certainly not least — we must accelerate our response to climate change. Climate change presents one of the greatest challenges of the century — as recognized in this city in 2015.
The economic consequences if we don’t act will be dire.
That is why we are increasingly engaging our membership on mitigating and adapting to climate change, advising on energy subsidies and carbon pricing. We are also helping countries to enhance their resilience to natural disasters.
Now, Lord Keynes might be surprised at some of this, but I think he would be pleased that the Fund is a forward-looking problem solver.
Conclusion
Now, I promised I would try to follow Madame Lagarde’s lead. So, in honor of our hosts, let me borrow from Alexandre Dumas, who wrote: “All human wisdom is contained in two words — wait and hope.”
If you will allow me a suggestion for this Bretton Woods moment:
Hope, yes. But this is not a time to wait.
In the years ahead, we must all act — and act together — staying true to the values of our founders while pursuing the goals of stability, prosperity, and peace.
Thank you very much.
With Compliments of the IMF

A group of major international companies has pledged to tackle inequality and promote diversity in their workplaces and supply chains as part of an initiative sponsored by the French Presidency of the G7 and overseen by the OECD.
The Business for Inclusive Growth (B4IG) coalition will be launched at the G7 Leaders’ Summit in Biarritz, France, which took place from 24 to 26 August 2019. Spearheaded by Emmanuel Faber, Danone Chairman and CEO, the coalition brought together 34 leading multinationals with more than 3 million employees worldwide and global revenues topping $1 trillion. Members agreed to sign a pledge to take concrete actions to ensure that the benefits of economic growth are more widely shared.
B4IG coalition members will tackle persistent inequalities of opportunity, reduce regional disparities and fight gender discrimination. Companies have identified an initial pool of more than 50 existing and planned projects, representing more than 1 billion euros in private funding, to be covered under the initiative. The projects range from training programmes to help employees adapt to the future of work to greater investment in childcare, to increasing women’s participation in the workforce; to financially supporting small businesses, to encouraging greater participation in supply chains; and to enhancing the integration of refugees through faster integration to the workforce. Coalition members will seek to accelerate, scale up and replicate already existing projects, while significantly expanding their social impact.
The platform, chaired by Danone, consists of a three-year, OECD-managed programme. It aims at increasing opportunities for disadvantaged and under-represented groups through retraining and ups-killing, as well as promoting diversity on the companies’ boards and executive committees and tackling inequalities throughout their supply chains. They will also step up business action to advance human rights, build more inclusive workplaces and strengthen inclusion in their internal and external business ecosystems.
B4IG initiative will be presented to French President Emmanuel Macron during a meeting with business and civil society leaders at the Elysées Palace on Friday 23 August.
OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said: “Growing inequality is one of the biggest social challenges in the world today, perpetuating poverty, undermining social cohesion and trust. Sustainable economic growth means inclusive economic growth. It means giving every individual the opportunity to fulfill her or his potential, the chance not only to contribute to a nation’s growth but to benefit from it, regardless of their background or origins.”
Mr Gurría added: “I welcome this initiative by France to involve some of the world’s most important companies to work hand-in-hand with governments and the OECD to tackle inequalities. The OECD, for its part, will contribute with its policy analysis, research and expertise.”
A Business for Inclusive Growth (B4IG) Incubator of public-private projects will be created at the OECD. The facility will offer companies access to the latest policy research, to help them launch and develop projects, undertake impact assessments and eventually bring about meaningful change. The B4IG Incubator will be funded by both G7 governments and private donors. It will service innovative inclusive business projects that require strong collaboration between the private and the public sector. The Incubator will catalyse and disseminate knowledge around the business models with higher social impact.
An evaluation of the projects will be published after three years, alongside OECD guidance for promoting inclusive growth through joint public-private action and for measuring business performance.
OECD Chief of Staff and Sherpa Gabriela Ramos, leader of the OECD Inclusive Growth Initiative, said: “The OECD has been documenting and raising the alarm bell regarding the increased inequalities of income and opportunities in OECD countries for decades. They do not only undermine social cohesion and trust, but they also hamper growth, by preventing our economies to take full advantage of the talent of its people and businesses. We are delighted to partner with leading companies that are committed to take action. Our experience, evidence and best practices are at the service of the Business for Inclusive Growth Initiative.”
With compliments of OECD
 

By John Bruton, former Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach)
I have just finished reading Seamus Mallon’s autobiography, entitled a “Shared Home Place”.Boris Johnson, or one of his advisors, ought to read it if they wish to get an insight into the concerns that underlie the Irish backstop. They will learn that Brexit, and the Irish peace, are not events in themselves, but processes that will go on for years, and will either deepen or reduce division over generations to come.
 This is not a one off problem to be solved, but a choice between two courses of action that are fundamentally inimical to one another.
As the title of his book implies, Seamus Mallon makes the case that Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland, must come to terms with the fact that they must share their home place with a million or so people (unionists) who see themselves as British, and who do not have, and will never have, an exclusively Irish identity.
The early part of the book deals with the author’s experience growing up, peacefully, as a member of a Catholic minority in the predominantly Protestant town of Market hill in Armagh.
 It then moves to the beginnings of the troubles, and the exclusive way in which local government operated to the benefit of the unionist majority, without regard to the wishes of the nationalist minority.
After a stint in local government, Seamus Mallon later was a member of the 1974 power sharing administration, led by the Unionist Brian Faulkner, and established on the basis of the Sunningdale Agreement between the Irish Taoiseach of the day, Liam Cosgrave and his counterpart, Edward Heath. 
This power sharing Administration was brought down by the Ulster Workers strikers, who objected to the whole idea of power sharing between the  two communities. 
Mallon believes the IRA also felt deeply threatened by power sharing, which may explain why Sinn Fein, despite all the efforts made by others to accommodate them, has so far been unable to work the Good Friday institutions even to this day.
Mallon was SDLP spokesman on Justice in the 1980’s and he made a point of attending all the funerals of victims of politically motivated violence in his area, which was an important, but very difficult, demonstration of his profound sense of fairness and,  of his opposition to all violence. 
The book is very explicit about the murderous collusion between the security forces and Loyalist paramilitaries. He names names.
Mallon deals with the Hume/Adams talks, and makes clear that John Hume did not bring his party along with him in this solo endeavour, a failure that had deep long term consequences. 
As Mallon puts it,
 “peace was being brought about in a way that was bypassing democratic procedures”.
He is critical of Sinn Fein having been allowed into government in Northern Ireland without the IRA first  getting rid of their weapons. 
As he puts it, the IRA, continuing to hold weapons, after the Good Friday Agreement had been ratified in both parts of Ireland, was
“a challenge to the sovereignty of the Irish people”.
This was also my opinion at the time, both as Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael. There are some principles that should not be blurred. It took the IRA 11 years to eventually put their arms beyond use, and Mallon says that this
 “led to huge mistrust and misunderstanding”.
 Mallon believes the British and Irish governments should have called the IRA’s bluff much earlier, and claims that it was the Americans who eventually forced the issue of decommissioning.
He gives a good account of the dramatic conclusion to the talks that led to the Good Friday Agreement, and of Tony Blair’s letter to David Trimble, promising that the process of decommissioning should start “straight away”, a promise Mallon says 
“Blair was either unwilling or unable to keep”.
Mallon understood Trimble’s problem, praises his courage, and believes he was ill used by Tony Blair.
But the artificially prolonged focus on decommissioning kept Sinn Fein as the centre of attention, and thus helped them to supplant the SDLP as the voice of Northern Nationalism. This was an error of historic proportions.
Mallon believes that the Trimble/Mallon( UUP/SDLP) power sharing Administrations  under the Good Friday Agreement achieved more that the Paisley/ McGuinness (DUP/SF) Administrations did. Mallon opposes political violence in all circumstances. 
As he says
“It is a universal lesson that political violence obliterates not only its victims, but all possibility of rational discourse about future political options”
I agree.
 The 1916 to 1923 period in Ireland also taught us that lesson too!
In the latter part of the book, Seamus Mallon talks about the prospects of a united Ireland. 
The Good Friday Agreement allows for referenda to decide the question. It posits a 50% + one vote as being sufficient to bring a united Ireland about. This is a deficiency in the Agreement.
 A united Ireland, imposed on that narrow basis, would be highly unstable. There would be a minority opposed to it that would simply not give up. 
As Mallon puts it
“I believe that if nationalists cannot, over a period of time, persuade a significant number of unionists to accept an Irish unitary state, then that kind of unity is not an option”
I agree.
The Irish and UK governments could find common ground here.
 But the two communities in Northern Ireland must first start talking to one another about what they really need and what they could concede to one another.
 There is no point blaming the politicians.  If the voters chose parties to represent them that are intransigent, then the voters themselves are ultimately responsible for the outcome.
This is something that Boris Johnson has to contemplate as he seeks a way to deal with the Irish backstop.
With compliments of John Bruton former Prime Minister of Ireland

By John Bruton, former Irish Prime Minister (Taoiseach)
This letter is important because it sets out the thinking of the new UK Government. It should be taken seriously and analysed. It contains a number of internal contradictions which should be, politely but persistently, probed by EU negotiators. I hope to explore some of these in this note.WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF SOVEREIGNTY?
Some of the terms used in the letter need to be defined.
For example, Mr Johnson claims the Irish backstop is inconsistent with the “sovereignty” of the UK as a state.
All international agreements impinge on sovereignty. But the ultimate sovereignty of a state concerns the states monopoly on the use of force within its territory. UK sovereignty in Britain and Northern Ireland is not interfered with by the backstop, in that basic understanding of state sovereignty.
WHAT IS JOHNSON OFFERING ON THE UNIQUE CHALLENGES FACING IRELAND?
Mr Johnson’s letter says
“ Ireland is the UK’s closest neighbour, with whom we will continue to share uniquely deep ties, a land border, the Common Travel Area, and much else besides. We remain, as we have always been, committed to working with Ireland on the peace process, and to furthering Northern Ireland’s security and prosperity. We recognise the unique challenges the outcome of the referendum poses for Ireland, and want to find solutions to the border which work for all.”
It continues
“ I want to re-emphasis the commitment of this Government to peace in Northern Ireland. The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, as well as being an agreement between the UK and Ireland, is a historic agreement between two traditions in Northern Ireland, and we are unconditionally committed to the spirit and letter of our obligations under it in all circumstances – whether there is a deal with the EU or not.”
Boris Johnson recognises what he calls the “unique challenges” Brexit poses for Ireland.It would be useful to ask him to set out in his own words 
what he thinks these “unique challenges” are, and to ask him to set out his own words
how he believes these can be met and
how his government might contribute to this.
I have the sense that neither he, nor his fellow Brexit advocates, have ever undertaken such a mental exercise.
Again, he says he is “unconditionally” committed to the “letter and the spirit “of the UK’s obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. 
It would be useful to ask Prime Minister Johnson to put in his own words what he considers these obligations to be, particularly as regards the “spirit “of the Agreement.
DIVERGENCE IS CENTRAL TO BREXIT, CONVERGENCE IS CENTRAL TO BELFAST AGREEMENT
Later in his letter, Mr Johnson says 
“When the UK leaves the EU and after any transition period, we will leave the single market and the customs union. Although we will remain committed to world-class environment, product and labour standards, the laws and regulations to deliver them will potentially diverge from those of the EU. That is the point of our exit and our ability to enable this is central to our future democracy.”
This is the most revealing paragraph of the entire letter.The whole point of Brexit, according to Mr Johnson, is to “diverge” from EU standards on environment, product and labour standards. This means Northern Ireland’s environment, product, and labour standards diverging from those of Ireland (as a member of the EU).
FROM WHICH EU STANDARDS DOES UK WISH TO DIVERGE?
Although it has been promoting Brexit for three years now, the UK government has yet to say which EU standards it wants to diverge from, and why it wishes to do so. Divergence, for its own sake, is what the UK wants, according to Mr Johnson. Given that the Good Friday Agreement is all about convergence (not divergence) between the two parts of Ireland, and between Britain and Ireland, there is a head on contradiction between these two parts of Mr Johnson’s letter. On the detail of the backstop, he says
“By requiring continued membership of the customs union and applying many single market rules in Northern Ireland, it presents the whole of the UK with the choice of remaining in a customs union and aligned with those rules, or of seeing Northern Ireland gradually detached from the UK economy across a very broad range of areas. Both of those outcomes are unacceptable to the British Government.”
This point has some validity in its own terms. If no alternative solution is found, and the backstop comes into effect, new EU rules, in the making of which the UK will not have had a hand, with apply either to the whole of the UK or to Northern Ireland.
So far the UK has been unable to come up with a credible alternative to the backstop, that would allow Brexit to go ahead, but also to avoid progressive divergence in regulations between the two parts of Ireland. 
That is the core problem, and Mr Johnson’s letter makes clear that “divergence” is the whole point of Brexit and “central to our future democracy”. It is important the UK public understand what their government is committing itself to.
IT IS BREXIT, NOT THE BACKSTOP, THAT UPSETS THE BALANCE
MrJohnson also claims that 
“ the backstop risks weakening the delicate balance embodied in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. The historic compromise in Northern Ireland is based upon a carefully negotiated balance between both traditions in Northern Ireland, grounded in agreement, consent, and respect for minority rights”
He is right to say that the Belfast Agreement is a carefully negotiated balance. But Brexit, of its very nature, upsets that balance. Brexit, as Mr Johnson’s letter says, is about divergence. If there is to be divergence between jurisdictions, there must be border controls between those jurisdictions. Brexit upsets the balance by forcing a choice between
having the divergence/border between North and South in Ireland (thereby favouring the  “unionist” position) or 
having the divergence/border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK (thereby favouring the “nationalist” position).
Brexit alone is responsible for forcing such a choice. And Brexit is a UK initiative, not something forced upon it. The only way to preserve the “balance”, to which Mr Johnson says he is committed, would be to dis-aggregate the regulations into categories, and have half the controls North/ South and half on an East/ West basis within the UK. This would be clumsy and would take years to negotiate. But so also is Brexit.
MINORITY RIGHTS AND BREXIT
Mr Johnson’s letter refers to
 “respect for minority rights”.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, but their wishes are to ignored because a majority in the wider UK voted for Brexit.  Brexit, as promoted by Mr Johnson, is a radical rejection of this minority rights aspect of the Good Friday Agreement.
Mr Johnson says
“The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement neither depends upon nor requires a particular customs or regulatory regime.“
It is true that the Agreement does not say this in terms. But, at the time the Agreement was negotiated, both the UK and Ireland were in the same customs and regulatory regime. That was taken for granted, and did not have to made explicit in the Agreement.
He goes on
“The broader commitments in the Agreement, including to parity of esteem, partnership, democracy and to peaceful means of resolving differences, can be met if we explore solutions other than the backstop.”
This is a strange sentence. It says the commitments “can” be met if we “explore” other solutions. An exploration by its nature is uncertain, and the use of this term contradicts the confident statement that solutions “can” be found. In any event, Mr Johnson ought to have come up with the solution himself by now.
DOES MR JOHNSON WANT TO BREAK UP THE EU SINGLE MARKET?
Mr Johnson goes on
“This Government will not put in place infrastructure, checks, or controls at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. We would be happy to accept a legally binding commitment to this effect and hope that the EU would do likewise.”
This reads to me like a straightforward attempt by a UK Prime Minister to destroy the EU Single Market. Controls on what goods and services may cross its borders are essential to the EU Single Market.  This is especially the case if the UK decides to make trade deals, with different rates of tariffs to the ones applied by EU. 
Given that “divergence” from EU rules is what Mr Johnson says Brexit is all about, inviting the EU not to enforce its own rules, raises the suspicion that, like his fan President Trump, Boris Johnson would like to dissolve the EU!
With compliments of John Bruton former Prime Minister of Ireland

The world faces an invisible crisis of water quality that is eliminating one-third of potential economic growth in heavily polluted areas and threatening human and environmental well-being, according to a World Bank report released today.

Quality Unknown: The Invisible Water Crisis shows, with new data and methods, how a combination of bacteria, sewage, chemicals, and plastics can suck oxygen from water supplies and transform water into poison for people and ecosystems. To shed light on the issue, the World Bank assembled the world’s largest database on water quality gathered from monitoring stations, remote sensing technology, and machine learning.
The report finds that a lack of clean water limits economic growth by one-third. It calls for immediate global, national, and local-level attention to these dangers which face both developed and developing countries.   
“Clean water is a key factor for economic growth. Deteriorating water quality is stalling economic growth, worsening health conditions, reducing food production, and exacerbating poverty in many countries.” said World Bank Group President David Malpass. “Their governments must take urgent actions to help tackle water pollution so that countries can grow faster in equitable and environmentally sustainable ways.”
When Biological Oxygen Demand – a measure of how much organic pollution is in water and a proxy measure of overall water quality – crosses a certain threshold, GDP growth in downstream regions drops by as much as a third because of impacts on health, agriculture, and ecosystems.
A key contributor to poor water quality is nitrogen, which, applied as fertilizer in agriculture, eventually enters rivers, lakes and oceans where it transforms into nitrates. Early exposure of children to nitrates affects their growth and brain development, impacting their health and adult earning potential. The run-off and release into water from every additional kilogram of nitrogen fertilizer per hectare can increase the level of childhood stunting by as much as 19 percent and reduce future adult earnings by as much as 2 percent, compared to those who are not exposed.
The report also finds that as salinity in water and soil increases due to more intense droughts, storm surges and rising water extraction, agricultural yields fall.  The world is losing enough food to saline water each year to feed 170 million people.
The report recommends a set of actions that countries can take to improve water quality. These include: environmental policies and standards; accurate monitoring of pollution loads; effective enforcement systems; water treatment infrastructure supported with incentives for private investment; and reliable, accurate information disclosure to households to inspire citizen engagement.
Note: The report, which was funded in part by the Global Water Security & Sanitation Partnership, a Multi-Donor Trust Fund based at the World Bank’s Water Global Practice, is available for download here: worldbank.org/qualityunknown
Compliments of the World Bank

In light of a resurgence of “advance fee fraud schemes” misusing the World Bank Group’s name, the institution is warning against investment deals and advance fee schemes that fraudulently invoke the institution’s name or claim to be affiliated with the World Bank Group.
Like many large organizations, we have seen increased use of sophisticated forms and letterhead that appear to be legitimate World Bank Group email correspondence or certificates. The World Bank’s name can be falsely invoked to give the scheme the appearance of authenticity and, in some cases, the wrongdoers may use the names of actual World Bank Group staff members to bolster the credibility of the scam.
Advanced fee fraud schemes involve solicitations that encourage potential victims to provide personal information such as signatures or bank account information, and to pay certain advance fees, often described as “processing fees” or “finder’s fees”. In return, the potential victim is promised sums of money which the scammer has no intention of paying.  Police estimate that thousands of these advance fee fraud solicitations – only a very small fraction involving the use of the World Bank Group’s name – are sent by e-mail every week and are addressed to individuals and companies around the world.
The World Bank Group has no involvement in such schemes, and we would like to caution the public to be wary of these and other similar solicitations that falsely claim to be affiliated with the World Bank Group or any member of the World Bank Group (the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance Corporation, the International Development Association, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, and the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes).
You can find more information about fraudulent investment schemes that misuse our name here.
Compliments of the Worldbank

Important institutional and policy changes have taken place since the 2012 FSAP. At the national level, the authorities have strengthened the macroprudential framework by establishing the High Council for Financial Stability (HCSF), enhanced monitoring of financial stability risks, prepared to manage the Brexit fall-out, introduced macroprudential measures, and taken various financial reform measures included in Loi PACTE—Action Plan for Business Growth and Transformation—and initiatives on digital finance, crypto-assets, green finance, and combating cyber risk.
At the European level, significant changes include the Banking Union (BU), Capital Requirements Regulation/Capital Requirements Directive (CRR/CRD), Solvency II, and efforts towards a Capital Markets Union (CMU). The financial system is more resilient than it was in 2012. Capital positions and asset quality have improved. Banking business is better placed to handle cross-border contagion, including from exposures to high-yield EA economies. Insurers’ solvency ratios have been stable and have been bolstered by the effective implementation of Solvency II. Household savings and balance sheets are relatively sound and house prices presently appear broadly aligned with fundamentals.
Download the report HERE
Compliments of the International Monetary Fund