List of 'no comment' sentences, by negations



{'address (26)', 'answer (132)'}

i wo n't say that it 's easy to answer, but it has to be addressed.

{'address (26)', 'discuss (250)', 'answer (132)'}

no, the answer to the first question is we really have n't discussed at all this and we think the measures we 've taken today are adequate to address the change in underlying economic conditions since our last monetary policy measures were taken.

{'address (26)'}

well, we have not addressed this question very specifically at our meeting today.

and so we are in fact revising our communication about ela, because there 's absolutely no reason to keep things secret now, when we 're addressing a massive systemic problem, a macroeconomic problem.

in a sense, it 's not a question you should address to me but to the leaders, because it 's a political question.

part of what is happening is a necessary adjustment, because let us not forget that the imbalances that initially needed to be addressed by greek economic policy were really very important.

so my understanding of this is that whatever arrangement could be found, it is not clear yet which specific area would be addressed by this arrangement.

i am not saying we have a fragile banking system, but it is very important to address this concern and to avoid a credit crunch.

as i 've said many times, the exchange rate is not a policy target but it 's a serious concern for our objective of price stability and therefore this concern will have to be addressed.

the first question is really, we never addressed that.

i trust that the question is not too much addressed to the ecb in your mind.

all what i can say at the moment i am speaking - again i remain very cautious - by making the synthesis of all the information we have been receiving -- information on growth, information on oil price increases, information on exchange rates, all kinds of information -- is that it broadly confirms our baseline scenario, but i will not confirm anything that would suggest that our growth projection would be different from the present baseline scenario to the extent that you addressed explicitly the question of growth.

you know that our main message is that we do not want second-round effects, and when we say second-round effects, we are addressing two major possible destabilisations.

i would also stress the fact that i 'm not addressing only wage-price spiralling.

we address the aspects that relate to liquidity and funding, and we can not and do not want at all to replace either the fiscal actions of the governments or to address a possible lack of capital held by the banks.

so, in a sense, we can now say that this measure is addressed to the whole of the euro area, it is not addressed to specific countries.

we have not addressed yet other types of formal guidance as other central banks have done, and we are reflecting on it.

the reasoning is as simple as that: i have nothing else to add at this stage and i have no information regarding any message which may be addressed to us.

again, the fact that we use the additional credit claims as a further way to provide collateral means that we have now addressed the funding issues -- we can not address the shortage of capital and we can not address the risk aversion that has indeed reached high levels.

so deflation risks are not there any longer, and that 's why we have removed one of our easing biases, which was exactly addressing the tail risks of the inflation path.

{'answer (132)'}

that i can not say for the future, but for now the answer is no.

i can not answer when.

now, on the room for manoeuvre i did n't answer the question.

i can not answer these questions.

for the foreseeable future, i can not answer.

i can not answer that question, but i do not believe in" complots ''.

well, since i can not answer the first question, i can not answer the second question either.

as far as the psychological considerations are concerned, let me first say that these are all hypothetical questions for which this old fox prefers to have no answer.

you are asking questions i really ca n't answer.

we 've seen that the probability mass of risks has shifted upward, although it 's not a dramatic effect at all, and then we will be in a better position to answer your question.

i am not going to answer this question as you can imagine.

but i 'm saying this not because i want to avoid the answer, but because i think he 's the most fully qualified for answering this question.

first of all, i ca n't answer positively to the first question.

no, i do n't think so because the present legislation that is in place is being applied in all its details ; that 's the straight and true answer.

i do not answer questions on voting.

we do n't see any country 's debt as being unsustainable, so that 's one answer.

so we do not have sufficient evidence to answer this question.

i 'm not sure i get the logic of the second question, but i 'll try to answer that anyway.

it 's very difficult to answer about my expectation of a market reaction following kind of a random statement made by somebody who did n't have any clue or information about that.

so, i would say that the question is too difficult to answer in a clear and unambiguous way.

on the first question: not knowing what the neutral rate is, i can not answer the question whether or not we are still accommodative.

if it does not, i am sorry, you will have to wait another week, unless you ask me more precise questions that i 'll forget to answer.

i can not answer the last question.

well i would n't like to engage in speculation, is the president 's answer.

i would not embark on any kind of" gossip '' in answering the part of your question which relates to how we should act in view of possible risks stemming from a slowing down of the global or us economy.

the solution to that problem has to be found in measures of a convincingly reformist nature in the labour and in the goods markets and we do hope that taking the monetary policy stance we have taken today will in the ensuing months increasingly focus the attention of policy-makers and the public on the real causes of the unemployment problem, because it will demonstrably become clear that monetary policy is not the answer to solve those problems.

i do not answer" what if? ''

to no extent, and that is the short answer i can give you.

and when you ask it, i can not answer that.

you will not be surprised if i say that i will not give an answer to your question.

you are asking questions that are so hypothetical that i do not have an answer to them.

well, i do not like to answer speculative or hypothetical questions.

it would go beyond a responsible answer if i already drew conclusions from that in the direction of" safe haven '' functions.

i do not know the answer.

as far as your second question is concerned, i ca n't really answer.

no, there was no discussion, but i think i answered the same question before.

no, the answer to your second question is that i do n't see any prospect of that happening.

we can not undertake exercises without having an answer to what happens if we identify capital shortfalls.

but i do not know them yet, so i can do no more than answer your question in these vague terms, and certainly not in quantitatively precise terms.

and the second question is a very hypothetical one on a change in the monetary policy stance in japan, and, well, let me say that i never give answers to hypothetical questions.

the last question i will not answer, as you know.

and i can not answer the question about quantifying the strength of the political factors in play.

i do not have an answer now.

i am very sorry but i am not in a position to answer this question.

so, i can not answer your question.

... but i do not have an answer.

i do n't want to give you an incorrect answer.

so, it being only one of a wide range, a broad range of indicators, and the relationship being a loose one, i can not give a precise answer to the question as to what precisely the impact will be in the future.

on the first question, these are volumes and they follow also principles of market neutrality and so it 's difficult for me to answer your question now.

not sure i can answer the second question.

i did not forget this question, i did not want to answer that question.

so, i am sorry for not being able to answer, but what is important is that it is not as simple as it may look.

the" why '' i have answered, the" when '' i can not answer.

i have drawn my conclusions and i accept the advice and that is: i am not going to answer any questions related to that recent interview and, insofar as interventions are concerned, any questions related to interventions.

so the very last question i do not have to answer.

it is difficult to answer with a yes or no, but have we designed the esm with the aim of it becoming a shareholder in banks in the euro area?

the first question, as you said actually very correctly, i can not answer, because we never pre-commit.

but i would not be very consistent in my stance if i were to answer your question when i did not answer the first question which was put to me.

as far as my succession is concerned, i do not take questions on that subject, with the exception of one answer that i can give: in the letter i wrote to president aznar in february of last year, when he was president of the european union, i literally wrote" dear mr. president, i herewith ask you to permit me to resign on 9 july 2003, or so much later as is in the interest of a smooth transition of the presidency. ''

on the budget, there are 12 budgets that we have to judge, so i can not give a general answer.

no, i have no such fears, because, on average, as i just implicitly said in the answer to the previous question, our expectations for euro area-wide growth are for a recovery in the course of this year and a further acceleration in the course of 2000, with growth percentages well over two percent.

now, of course the second question i will not answer given what 's been said at the beginning ; that i am not taking questions on a court case that 's pending.

i find it very difficult to answer that question, for me it clears the horizon.

but, on the first point, i would not call my answer" legalistic ''.

you are asking questions i really can not answer, not only because we only took note of this today, but also because these are really internal policy matters on which the president of the ecb has no say.

just one more thing i did not answer.

as regards your second question, i do not have an answer on the esm.

i am sorry, i can not answer the second question because we have always said that our non-standard measures are temporary and we do not want to pre-commit with regard to future decisions.

as i have not yet said what the ecb is going to do about greece, it is a very difficult question to answer.

of course, i can not answer that question because - and i keep on coming back to it - we have to interpret the movements in m3 in a totally new environment and with totally new time series with great caution.

so, from that you might derive that we are indeed not inclined to try to fine-tune the economy with monetary policy, or to give fine-tuning answers to short-term developments.

to say at what time is too hard ; i can not answer that.

the last question i will not answer.

{'anticipate (20)'}

i do not want to anticipate the conclusion which will be drawn following the proposal of the commission by jean-claude juncker as chairman of the eurogroup.

as regards what will be said at the next meeting of the eurogroup, i do not want to anticipate ; it is a meeting of the eurogroup and it will depend very much on what will be said by the various delegations -- not by only one, but by the various delegations that will present their own situations and intentions.

as regards your third question on structural reforms, again, i do not anticipate the next meeting and meetings of the eurogroup.

that being said, i do not want to anticipate the meeting which will take place next monday at the level of the eurogroup.

i said from today 's perspective, and taking into account the support of our measures to growth and inflation, we do n't anticipate that it will be necessary to reduce rates further.

i would certainly hope so, but i do not want to anticipate our own projections, so we will see what our own projections are.

as regards what the united states might or might not ask, we will see when we participate in the meeting, but again, i do not want to anticipate in any respect what we will do, or what the british presidency will do, i will only say that the present global consensus -- and it has been expressed several times before now -- is that we all have homework to do.

from today 's perspective, and taking into account the support of our measures to growth and inflation, we do n't anticipate that it will be necessary to reduce rates further.

on the other point about negative rates, let me just say again what i said at the very beginning: from today 's perspective, and taking into account the support of our measures to growth and the return to our price stability objective, we do n't anticipate that it will be necessary to reduce further rates.

the impact of the recent further surge in energy prices leads us to the conclusion that, if they were not to come down quickly, the period during which the actual inflation rates would be over the 2% limit, below which we want them to remain, will be somewhat longer than we anticipated earlier.

it 's a new instrument of monetary policy that will be used for contingencies that we do n't see now, and that 's what we anticipate.

second, the risks that i listed on behalf of the governing council will not surprise you ; there is the stronger pass-through of past oil price increases than previously anticipated, and that remains a risk.

so today 's interest rate move was in no way influenced by developments in the exchange rate, except that past developments in both oil prices and exchange rates were longer and more protracted than we had anticipated earlier andthey do work their way through orthey threaten to work their way through, both of them, into domestic inflationary expectations.

so, you should not deduce from the fact that our projections were below but close to 2% in the medium term, at least in this horizon, that we do not need to increase rates simply because such increases, as anticipated by the markets, were incorporated in this projection.

first question -- we will see what will be in our next projections, and i do not want to anticipate in any respect the next projections -- they depend on a number of parameters and on the work that will be done by our staff.

so i do not want to anticipate a decision which is a very important one and will be made at the appropriate level, namely at the level of heads of states and governments.

but i do not want to anticipate what our staff will present next time.

i will not enter into any speculation about who will be my successor, as you can understand and as you undoubtedly anticipated.

{'assume (8)', 'respond (38)'}

we are in a symmetrical position -- i assume that the federal reserve would not respond by saying" yes, we are under the influence of the ecb, if they do this, we would do that ''.

{'assume (8)', 'speculate (35)'}

but i do n't want to ask mr. noyer to speculate about the" when '', precisely if i assume he knows as much as i do.

{'assume (8)', 'talk (39)'}

but, certainly, these must be the two reasons: either they are fearful to lend -- and here we are talking about banks that do not have capital constraints of course -- so, assuming that they do not have any capital constraints, banks do not lend because either the risk aversion is too high or because there is no demand.

{'assume (8)'}

in our projections the monetary policy stance or the level of interest rates is a so-called exogenous variable, so we do not assume any change, strictly for - i am almost inclined to say -" scientific reasons ''.

so, do not assume anything, but see it as a reminder of the terms of reference that i have for this particular issue.

as you might recall, these do not all assume that we would embark on the administrative regulation of these particular highly-leveraged institutions, but rather on a number of very important indirect moves with the full involvement of the core intermediaries, namely the prime brokers that are themselves under the jurisdiction of the banking surveillance authorities.

by virtue of the fact that we are taking no action at present, you can assume that we are not perturbed by the present state and development of the exchange rate.

regarding sterilisation, you should not assume that we are not going to sterilise or that we will sterilise -- you have to understand, these operations are complex and they affect markets in a variety of ways.

{'clarify (6)', 'answer (132)'}

so, in may 2003, we clarified that that was not the case, so the definition was clarified as" below, but close to, 2% '' for the reasons that the president gave in one of his answers.

{'clarify (6)'}

i am not sure that i understand exactly what kind of discord you are referring to between the ecb and the markets, but if you want to clarify this further, i can be more precise in answering.

since, as you know, the strategy has not changed but merely been clarified, this decision would also have been taken had we not made this clarification public.

`` in line '' meaning below or close to 2%, and i wo n't clarify more than that.

{'comment (450)', 'answer (132)'}

i will not give an answer to the first question, i do not comment.

this is for the first time that i give the answer which i announced i would give already on 31 december 1998, that is" no comment ''.

well, the answer is no, i ca n't comment.

my answer is that i do n't comment on levels of the exchange rate.

but to answer your second question, while i do not want to comment on individual positions, of course, i can say that the discussion was very constructive across the board.

on the first question the answer is no and on the second question, i will not comment.

in answer to your second question, i do not comment on other people 's statements, because there are so many made about the ecb between one governing council meeting to another that we would basically spend the whole time commenting on them.

my answer is, well, in the first place when something is before the courts you do not comment.

on your first question, the answer is no, because basically, and this also holds for all the other possible questions on this issue, negotiations are proceeding at this point in time, so there is no point in me commenting on different aspects of these negotiations and different proposals.

the second question is easy to answer: i wo n't comment on specific banking institutions.

the answer to your first question is no and as regards your second question, i already made all the comments necessary.

{'comment (450)', 'anticipate (20)'}

i can not anticipate what our next staff projections are likely to be: i will comment on them to you in a month 's time.

{'comment (450)', 'consider (94)'}

and let me just say -- and this is not a comment on those particular future decisions ; it 's also a general comment -- that we are extremely keen on preserving what we consider essential in the present circumstances, namely the fact that this institution, the ecb, is an anchor of stability and confidence, and that all that we do must be understood and perceived as such by our fellow citizens.

i am not going to comment on other strategies and tactics, but as far as our own strategy and tactics are concerned, we are credible and will continue to solidly anchor our expectations, which we consider to be our major asset.

{'comment (450)', 'discuss (250)'}

on the g7 you know, because i always say that i do not comment myself in advance on the meeting of the g7, i will have a press briefing after the meeting of the g7 in tokyo and then i will say what we will have discussed and decided in terms of a communiqué wording, so, at this stage, no comment.

on the first question, it was not discussed so i am not in a position to comment on that.

i will not comment on the first question because it was discussed already.

on latvia, we did not discuss this issue at all at this governing council meeting and so i have no particular comments at this stage.

{'comment (450)', 'examine (18)'}

on the first issue, i 'm really commenting only on monetary policy, and as we said in the last part of the introductory statement, monetary policy should n't be the only game in town, but this can be viewed in a variety of ways, one of which is the way in which our colleague actually explored in examining the situation, but there are other ways.

{'comment (450)', 'remark (24)'}

first of all, i do not comment myself on spreads or on the evolution of the market, and i take it that your remarks are an observation of what is going on.

i will not comment on any remark made by any member of the commission, including mr solbes.

{'comment (450)', 'speculate (35)'}

so until then i do not think it would be appropriate for us to make any further comments and speculate about the outcome.

{'comment (450)', 'tell (77)'}

now i 'm told it 's $ 1.20, okay, but i do n't comment about levels of exchange rates anyway so...

i will not comment on italy, but more generally i can tell you that in some countries, for example greece, there was a labour market reform, bank recapitalisation, fiscal consolidation, and the same thing in ireland and portugal.

let me tell you that i never comment on surveys with questions on going back to this or that currency.

on the interest rate moves of other countries, i can not comment, with the exception that, as the danish governor told me, truly, it has become possible for the danes to lower their official rates partly as a result of the successful launch of the euro.

so, it 's just as i said last time, i have nothing new to tell you and that would be my comment on that.

{'comment (450)'}

i will not comment on the real interest rates, which have to be analysed at a global level and not only at the level of europe or the us.

as regards the rumours, i never comment on rumours.

i do n't comment and particularly not when it concerns such an esteemed colleague of mine.

on your first question i have no particular comment.

i have no particular comment.

well, i have decided on many occasions - and i have stuck to that decision ever since - that i will not comment any further on this issue.

i will not comment on specific irish economic management.

generally, we are not commenting on other central banks ' monetary policy actions.

these are really issues specific to a certain country and i just do n't want to comment.

on the letter, i 'd rather, frankly, not comment.

on your second question, i will not comment on a specific auction.

i have no other comment.

i have no other comment on the smp.

on the other question, we never really comment on other jurisdictions ' policies, but if this is necessary to achieve the inflation objectives and more generally, more broadly, the objectives of the federal reserve 's monetary policy, this is a plus for the world.

i will not comment in any other fashion.

i will not make any further comments on the monetary policy of japan.

i will not comment too much on what we have been observing in one particular, very important euro area economy recently because what counts for us is the full body of the euro area.

we never really comment on exchange rates, and even less so on levels of exchange rates, or whether a certain level is appropriate or not.

i am not going to comment on exchange rate developments.

i do not comment on the decisions made by other central banks.

that is for the council of ministers and i am not going to comment on individual countries.

at this stage i have no other comment that the rule of the treaty must be respected fully in all circumstances.

that being said, we are doing what we judge to be appropriate in order to cope with this situation and i will not comment on any modification of the deposit rate.

so i trust the lucidity of observers, but i do n't comment on their immediate reaction.

as regards your first question, i commented that i would attribute predictability to the wisdom and lucidity of observers, but i never comment on immediate reactions that the introductory statement could trigger in the market.

i do not want to comment on things that have not yet been published.

and as such, i do not believe - although i can not comment further on forecasts which still have to be released - i do not believe that they are already now too optimistic.

as regards slovakia, we do not have a position of the governing council on slovakia and i do not want to comment on question marks that one might have, which are fully legitimate.

i promised on 31 december 1998 that i would no longer comment on that issue.

at this stage, i do not want to comment on or qualify what we could do or not do.

i wo n't comment any further on the zero.

as regards your third question i have no other comment on interest rates at zero.

and the following statement i made - and that was the last i made and will be the last that i make - was that i would not comment on this issue again.

i believe i should not make any comment that could be interpreted in any way as influencing decisions.

and i confirm to you that i never comment on such matters.

and, as regards intervention, you know also that i never comment on such matters.

i do not comment on the american monetary or fiscal policy in the context of global growth, and that means i also do not listen to advice i get from the outside on our monetary policy.

without commenting specifically on that, let me say that the overall purpose of that document is to ensure that greece will become a thriving economy in the euro area.

in a sense what i said before could be used in several ways: i 'm not going to comment on politicians ' statements.

i will not comment more on stock exchanges.

so, i would say that anything we have that goes in the direction of an alleviation of this combined risk of oil prices, commodity prices and geopolitical risk would go in a good direction, but i have no other comment.

i will not repeat my statement about fruitless chatter ; that was the other part, if you were just hinting that i should comment on other people 's statements on the exchange rates.

i have no particular comment on that, but we are in a trough, that is absolutely clear, and progressively we will see a gradual recovery.

ministers committed to not commenting on that and so i will not be the first to violate this commitment.

you know we do n't comment directly on exchange rates.

i will not comment on individual countries here.

as for the imf, oecd and other international institutions, i do not comment at all on their figures, if any.

as regards your question on the pressure from some euro zone governments i have no comment.

i will not comment further.

i will not comment on any particular meaning that the last sentence might have but it has no other meaning besides what it says:" the governing council will monitor very closely all developments ''.

on the second part of your question, as i said before i ca n't comment because we never pre-commit.

i frankly do n't want to comment on that explicitly.

i just wo n't make any comment on that ; it 's just too early.

well, i can not really comment on the report as such, because it is a process, it is coming out, it is in the making -- it still can be modified by further discussions.

i am sorry, but i will not comment on the specific italian situation.

unfortunately i have to disappoint you because i am not going to comment on any of this.

i will not comment on specific statements by important politicians.

i think what we are doing at the level of the governing council of the ecb with the securities markets programme has been made absolutely clear, and i would not comment on spreads, just as i do not comment on a day-to-day basis on the level of stocks and shares.

as regards your first question i have no particular comment on spreads.

i just ca n't comment on this.

as regards your second question, i will not comment particularly on short-selling.

i have no other comment.

as regards your second question, i will not comment on the future.

at this stage i have no other comment.

i do not like to comment on declarations or text that i have not read.

as regards your second question i have no further comments to make.

unfortunately, i can not comment on either of the questions, because stopping this process is very much a decision that is entirely in the hands of governments.

unfortunately on neither ; i can not comment on either of the two questions.

as i said at the time, we do n't comment on politicians ' statements about our monetary policy.

i never comment, as you know, on the exchange rate on a day-to-day basis.

i stick to that, and as you know, you will never have any comments from me on the intervention concept.

i will not comment in advance.

well, let me first say that we do not, by and large, comment on the nationalisation of banks.

again, we will do whatever is necessary and i will not comment more on future decisions.

i will not comment more on that.

i say regularly when i am asked more direct questions that i do not comment on absurd hypotheses.

you will be aware that i never comment on that.

i will not comment more on the exchange rate.

but i do n't comment in any respect.

as regards your first question, i never comment on what colleagues say.

these are monetary issues that have a market influence and i will certainly not comment on issues of that nature.

first of all, i will not comment at all on the first question.

i 'll not comment on the" here '' or the" there '', but they seem to be adding to the upside risks.

but i do n't want to comment further.

on the first question, i never, ever comment on market developments.

i wo n't comment on market reactions, but let me give you the bottom line of our exchanges: basically, inflation is not where we want it to be, and where it should be.

i wo n't comment any more on that.

on this very important question, which is the constitution, we all rely very much on the wisdom of the irish presidency, and i will not comment on the details of what the irish presidency is preparing.

i will not comment on a number of other issues.

second, i would say that you have noted that i did not say the words" strong vigilance '', and i do n't want to comment any further on that.

i would n't ask my colleague, danièle nouy, to comment on our monetary policy stance.

there are permanent changes in the market, so i will certainly not comment on such things.

as regards your first question it is not my habit to comment either on a second-by-second basis or on a day-by-day basis.

i will not comment in any respect on what we could do next time.

i do not want to comment again on that issue because i think i am giving a status to these projections that would not necessarily be the real appropriate status that they have in our own monetary policy strategy.

the decision that has been taken is a step in the right direction and i do not want to comment any more on that.

so i would rather not comment on that.

well, i gave a plea for a responsible policy of fiscal consolidation and then i do not comment on individual countries ' announcements.

first of all, i will not comment on nout.

i do n't really want to comment on specific countries, but i can give you the names of the leaders.

i will not comment on us monetary policy.

i do not comment on individual countries, not even germany.

i never comment on the decisions which are taken by the bank of japan or the federal reserve or other fellow central bank governors.

as to your other point, i will certainly not comment any further, as i have already said everything that i have to say about the future.

i will not comment on any acceleration of the pace of our progressive withdrawal of monetary accommodation if our baseline scenario is confirmed.

i will not comment again because i did that already in the past on the impact of vat and the speeding-up of consumption before the impact of vat and then the slowing-down.

i will not comment on the exchange rates.

i am not commenting on the decision of any individual country.

i can not comment on individual countries.

as regards this particular point, the staff rules state that the normal way to organise dialogue with the management of the bank, if i am not mistaken -- although i am speaking on a matter that is under the control of lucas, who will comment on this -- is through the staff committee.

and i have no further comments at this stage.

so, i will not comment further on that.

first of all, i certainly do not want to comment on the day-to-day evolution of stock markets or the day-to-day evolution of any market in particular.

i do not comment myself on absurd hypotheses, so that would be my response.

i would rather not comment on the second question.

often elections have an impact on the economy, but i can not comment on the specifics of this election.

i have absolutely no comment on that.

i will not comment on the market pricing-in future decisions.

as regards your second question i will not comment on the ratings.

with regard to your question on the instability in italy i have no comments.

i would say that provided it is a smooth and orderly evolution, we have no reason to comment on it.

well, we are in real time, and i will wait until the communiqué is published and will not comment at this stage.

i will not comment on any particular wage negotiations occurring here and there.

i am not going to comment on the conclusions that another major central bank reached in quite a different situation.

i am reporting here on the outcome of the governing council 's considerations so i can not comment on that either.

on the first i will not comment.

i never comment, as you know, on fed decisions either, which i trust are excellent when taking into account all information that the federal reserve has.

i will certainly not comment on bank of england decisions, which i 'm sure are excellent decisions in the context of the uk.

i will certainly not comment on anything of the kind of the quantum of rate increases, at a certain period of time.

i wo n't comment on the italian intention, but i will comment on the estonian decision.

as regards the uae 's declaration to which you refer, i did not see it, and i will not comment on it.

anyway -- even if i had seen it, i would not have commented on it !

i do n't want to comment specifically on them -- you know what they are.

on the second question, i do n't want to comment in detail, really, but let me give you the bottom line of this after some reflection.

no, we have certainly not changed our diagnosis at the level of the euro area as a whole and i will not comment on one particular event.

and i would not comment particularly on one economy, because it seems to me that what we are observing in terms of surveys, as well as in terms of soft data and hard data, is by and large in line in the various national economies that make up the euro area.

so i have no comment on your last question as to what we will decide.

i never comment on exchange rates, but the exchange rate is certainly a very important element as far as growth and price stability are concerned, and we certainly use it as one of the elements in our economic assessment.

my responsibility is to convey the decisions of the governing council, not comment on individual statements.

second, on the point more generally i 'm not going to comment on individual statements.

there is nothing that i would like to comment on at this stage.

well, as i said, i am not in the habit of commenting on developments either in the tax field or in other fields of economic policy in individual countries.

so, that is an indication that you might have, and i will not comment on any particular provisioning of commercial banks.

on the interventions, i never comment.

on the exchange rates, i have no other comments than those i have already made.

it would be premature for me to make any comment about that.

i will not comment on the statements of any particular head of state or government.

on the first question, you know that i never comment on the exchange rates, except when i have something to say.

i will not comment further on this issue.

as regards your second question i do not comment on future rates.

on your last point, i never comment on the comments of colleagues.

i will not comment on figures that are produced on a monthly basis.

i do not want to comment on our democracies ' procedures.

i usually do not comment on the functioning of our democracies.

as regards your second questions on the securities market programme, we have had no discussions with anybody and have absolutely no comment on the idea that you have floated.

well, again, i do not want to comment on the day-to-day evolution.

so i do not want to comment on the experience of any particular council member.

i myself do not comment on rumours or leaks that are not confirmed.

as regards inflation, i do n't see that there 's any comment to make.

i do not comment on measures taken by other monetary institutions.

no, i will not comment on the bank of england 's decision.

and, as i said, every partner has to live up to its responsibility, but i do not want to comment any more on that.

i would not comment on any recent change in our own analysis in this respect.

i do not want to comment on slight changes that we might observe when we extract information from markets as it is not really pertinent.

as you know, we look at the euro area as a whole, so i do not want to comment on a country.

i never comment on what my colleagues say, because they do not speak on behalf of the governing council.

first of all, i already said here that i will not comment on the day-to-day and week-to-week evolution of currencies on markets.

i do not want to comment any more on what would happen if the commitments are not met.

well, i ca n't comment directly on any individual banks, but what i can say about what the portuguese authorities have done in this case, they certainly took swift action on that case.

on the first question, i really do n't want to comment.

and i am not in the habit of commenting on measures taken in individual countries of the euro area.

well, as i have said, i do not usually comment on single countries -- and this holds for spain as it held before for italy, ireland and so on.

as regards greece as i said, i am reluctant to make any comment about our intentions because really we are watching this negotiation and then we will make up our mind.

on the first issue, as i said before, i really am reluctant to comment on negotiations in which the ecb is not a direct party and that are actually taking place at this point in time.

as for the second question, i do not really comment on mr bini smaghi 's views and i really do not know what a tailor-made quantitative easing for the euro area could be.

as i have said, i have no comments to make on the second question.

i have no news that i can comment on.

i do not know how to comment about mr steinbrück 's assessment, other than saying that obviously we are always very pleased when people say that the ecb is the only institution that works.

with regard to the exchange rate, as you know, i never comment on exchange rates, but i would say that we should keep to the g7 communiqué of 8 august 2011, in which we reaffirmed our shared interest in a strong and stable international financial system and our support for market-determined exchange rates.

on your first question: as you know, i never comment, on the day to day evolution of markets in general, and much less so in real time at this very moment !

i will not comment more on the euro/dollar relationship than i have already done.

on the second question, a review is currently under way so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on speculations regarding the outcome.

i have no particular comment on that.

i do not comment on exchange rates, as you know.

i have no particular comment on specific reforms except to repeat that more needs to be done, especially on structural reforms, to continue the efforts that have already been made.

i really do not have any comment to make about the next elections in the european parliament.

i will not comment on the political developments in portugal, because it would not be my job to do so.

on the precise amount, i can not really make any comment: first of all, because it is a decision of the member states ; and second, because it is a decision that has to be calibrated vis-à-vis the eventual shortfalls that may come up.

if it is a new thing, i do n't want to comment in any respect because we have to look at it.

usually, i think that a central banker should not comment on speeches of other central bankers, so i will refrain from commenting on the speech presented by my colleague, greenspan, last week.

i will not comment on that, i do not see how there could be a counterweight to the ecb.

but i will not comment on any bold moves that may have been decided.

i have no other comments on that.

again, i do not comment on the exchange rate here, as you know.

as regards your third question i will not comment on vigilance in the other direction.

i have no particular comment on that.

i do not participate in the game of commenting on the comments of others.

i will not comment on financial stability.

i will not comment on the decision of the bank of england, which happened to be on exactly the same day.

i will not comment on your own hypothesis.

i have no other comment.

so, i have no further comments to make.

i never comment on the market itself.

we are certainly living in a universe where the weakness of some currencies can be associated with the weakness of domestic features, but i will not comment on particular currencies.

i do n't want to comment on the ill feelings, but certainly, what i would suggest is you go back to the last 15-plus years and look at which countries have been in the excessive deficit procedure most often, over the last, say, 15, 16, 17 years, and then draw a conclusion from there.

well, on the second question, as you know, i can not comment.

on the spanish request, i will decline to make any comment.

as regards your second question, i will not comment on the spread, the indexed rates or the absence of them that we may decide.

first to your second question, the message i gave is clear and i will not comment again on that.

i will only say that i do not comment on absurd questions.

it is totally absurd and i will not comment any more on that.

so, i have no particular comment.

i will not comment on this evolution.

at this stage, i will not comment further.

i never comment on interventions, as you know.

therefore i have no comment on whether some survey indicators have peaked or not.

i will not comment on comments.

i can not comment because i did n't read that.

i will not comment on whether the market itself understands clearly what has been said.

i have no particular comment to make on that issue concerning the greek banks.

i have no other comment to make on that.

i never comment in real time on market reactions.

so, i do not have any particular comment on what the united states could do, or could not do.

we never pre-commit in advance and i will not comment on what could happen in the months to come.

i will certainly not comment on future decisions.

but i do not comment on its reaction and particularly not on its reaction -- whether up or down -- in real time.

i certainly will not comment on such a question.

i never comment on future markets.

i never comment on that, but i have full confidence that the government of latvia will take the decisions that are appropriate for the domestic context without a change in the currency.

it was a phone call, and i would not comment further.

i will not comment on the discussions that took place.

as to the moves mr. tietmeyer may or will make, passively or actively, i will certainly not comment on this.

i was referring to the domestic measures that the government has to take in order to continue the adjustment in the best fashion possible, and i do not have any other comments on that.

i have no other comment on that point.

on your second point, i have no particular comment.

i ca n't really comment on one view.

as i said before, we think, and we have numbers that show -- and the vice-president is particularly well documented on this -- that the aggregate profitability of the banking system has not been hindered by the experience we had of negative rates, and he can comment on that at great length.

at this stage i will not comment further.

as regards your third question i will not comment on the quarterly results of various institutions.

on the first question, on interventions, i never comment: so, no comment on your first question on interventions.

these are procedures that are ongoing and i will not comment on them.

on the second question, we are permanently reviewing our policy, so i have no particular comment on that point.

i will not comment on any particular measure.

i have no particular comment to make myself.

we have no particular comment on the united states.

on glass-steagall, i have no particular comment to make.

i will not comment on that.

i have no comment other than to refer to what i have just said on our position.

i would not wish to comment further.

but, in any case i have no comment.

i never comment on such matters.

so i will not comment on decisions that have to be taken by colleagues in full liberty and full independence, because that is the nature of the contract.

on that question, as i promised on 31 december 1998, i will give no further comments.

on the first question, i can not give any further comments.

i can not comment on the latter question.

i have no comments on it, because i do not know the reasoning behind it.

i am not going to comment further on either that interview or the interventions.

it is not that i can not comment.

i have no particular comment on glass-steagall.

i do not comment on declarations by heads of states and governments, in particular the president of the united states, only to echo him when he says that a strong dollar is in the interest of the united states.

in response to the rest of your question, it is good to be cautious and prudent regarding sensitive matters and i would not comment in particular on ireland.

you already knew what that position was, and i have no other comment.

as you know, i do not comment on such statements.

i never comment on markets on a day-to-day basis, first of all.

i have no particular comment on the decision we will take next time.

so, i will not comment on any such possibility.

i have no other comment on that.

at each of these meetings we look at whether we have to increase rates, decrease rates or leave rates unchanged, and i have no other comment on that.

and i will not comment on that issue at any other time, not even on whether discussions have taken place.

we did not comment in our discussion on that particular point.

i will not comment on a day-to-day basis or a week-to-week basis, thus no comment on real-time market reaction.

on the first point, i never comment.

i will not comment now.

i do not want to comment on the european commission 's statements but i think what is meant by that statement is that ireland has achieved remarkable, very significant and substantial progress on the front of fiscal consolidation, but also on the front of bank restructuring.

i will not, in any event, comment on my personal plans or on the position of president of the ecb, as i had promised the press that i would not do so at any time in the future.

i will not comment in any other fashion on what we in the governing council may do.

i do not want to comment.

as regards japan, i have no particular comment on the policy pursued.

we have taken note of the forecasts that are being prepared by the staff of the eurosystem, i.e. the ncbs and the ecb, and those forecasts will be made public in our forthcoming monthly bulletin -- i believe, on 14 december -- so that i can not comment now on precisely what the forecast would entail for next year.

on the first point, i have already commented on exchange rates and i have no further comments.

i will not comment on interventions.

i never comment on any intervention, so you will find out what we have done when the time comes, namely next monday.

i have nothing to add to the comments i have made regarding the securities market programme.

i will not comment further on portugal.

so i never comment on market sentiment on a short-term or real-time basis.

on your first question, it is not for me to comment in real time on what the market does or does not think.

all that being said, it is work in progress and i do not want to comment on this work in progress right now.

as regards your second question i will make no comment on the political situation.

we are very flattered to be on your side and i do n't comment any more on the glass-steagall act...

as regard your second questions i have no particular comment on the monetary policies of other central banks

on our securities markets programme, let me only say that it is an ongoing programme and that i have no comments beyond that.

but we do not comment on what we buy or on what we do not buy.

i do not comment at all.

i will not comment on that.

and as regards central banks, i do not want to comment on what the other central banks are doing.

i have no other comments on that.

i will not comment on exchange rates, i would only say that each central bank in the world -- whether it is in japan, in the united states, in sweden or in the united kingdom and of course here -- decides on the basis of its own responsibilities.

i will not comment more on that as it seems to me that we are clear enough.

i promise today that i will stick to my promise not to comment on that issue again.

i do not want to comment on the specific decisions or intentions of any particular government.

now, we are not quite sure in the italian case, and i will not comment further on that specific country, on the extent to which the disappointing growth performance so far is due to cyclical or to structural factors.

as regards your first question, i have no comment on rating agencies at this stage.

i have no other comment on your question on rating agencies at this stage.

as regards your second question on the monetary policy stance, you know that it is not customary at all for me to comment on what the market might or might not think.

it is good to look at all ideas on possible initiatives, but i have no particular comment at this stage.

and i never comment on policies that are pursued by other central banks.

as regards the us dollar, i have no other comment than the usual comment, according to which - to take the words of the us authorities - a dollar which is credible and strong vis-à-vis the other major floating currencies is good for the us and for the rest of the world.

and i have no particular comment on that.

i have not seen the letter so i can only comment once i have seen it.

i have said that i have no further comments to add.

that is a concept that we have been applying since the very beginning and, again, i do not want to comment on the policies that are pursued by other central banks.

of course, we do not normally comment on specific levels or movements.

and so from this viewpoint it would be difficult for me to comment on the prospects for structural reforms in that country.

as regards your second question: first of all, we never comment on rumours.

having said that, it would not be proper for me to make comments about something that is currently unfolding.

so if we do n't comment on pronouncements, you can imagine how difficult it is to form an expectation on that.

in any case, i do not comment on our own communication.

on your first point, i never comment, as you know, on moves on the market on a day-to-day basis or minute-by-minute basis.

i think that our analysis is clear enough to permit markets to make up their mind, and i will not comment more on that.

i will not comment on market expectations.

i will not comment on votes.

but it was not a comment that was meant to infringe upon the independence of the governing council, i am absolutely sure of that.

on the first point, i never comment on what my colleagues are saying.

they are in line with what we had already said before the commission envisaged making formal and official proposals and so i will not comment further on the commission proposal while we do not have the official proposal of the commission.

i do not want to comment on specific banks, but monte dei paschi has not been resolved at all.

first of all, i do not comment on any particular declaration by colleagues.

so, i will not comment on what is done on the other side of the atlantic.

on the second point, i do n't want to comment on that.

and i will not comment on whether or not we are satisfied.

i have never commented on such matters at any time in the past.

as regards the rest, and the investigation taking place in italy, i have absolutely no comment to make.

but i will certainly not comment on a particular level.

i will not comment on the exchange rate.

now, let me say the following: any kind of comments from my side about a possible change of our own mandate is totally out of the question.

we never comment on that.

i would not like to comment further on their entry into the erm and then afterwards perhaps the euro.

i have no memory of having commented in that way the dubai communiqué.

i have no other comment on that.

well, on the first question, i have no comments.

i have no other comment on market expectations which would go against current expectations.

as regards your second question i have no particular comment on what has been said by any speaker.

i will not comment -- i never comment -- on the market on a short-term basis.

so whoever wants to ask me about switzerland, just you should know ; we never comment on other central banks ' decisions.

i ca n't remember, because we never comment on other central bank policies.

i have no comment.

i have no particular comment on that.

as regards your second question, i have no particular comment to make on any recent decisions.

i have no further comment on this, apart from that we say" no '' to selective default.

i have no further comment on future decisions.

but i do not comment or take questions on developments in individual euro area countries.

i will certainly not comment on whether it would be over and above 2%, or below 2%, but it will be higher at the end of the year.

and i will not comment again on the relationship between the bank of japan and the executive branch in tokyo.

first of all we never comment on rumours or anonymous declarations.

and i have no comment to make on your question of an attack on the euro.

and i will not comment on the decision taken today by the parliament in rome.

i take for likely, i do not recall exactly, that it was a comment on the last observations of the last quarter of last year and there, again, we have to remain a little bit cautious on how to interpret what has been observed, in particular in germany.

i have not yet received a fully fledged analysis of it, so i can not comment yet on this point.

as regards your second question i will not comment on what will be done.

on your second question, i do not comment on what is said by colleagues.

i have no other comments.

i will not dwell on domestic economic policy and i will not comment on that.

we are free to do what we would judge appropriate when the time comes, but at the present moment, i do n't want to comment any more on probabilities.

again, we are not pre-committed in any respect and i will not comment on the" august '' question.

as you know, we have a separation principle, and we never comment on individual institutions.

i will not comment on the observation of market participants.

i have no further comment.

first, i have no particular comment on the declaration of the president of iceland, as i have n't read it and i do not usually comment on declarations that i have not read.

i never comment on market behaviour in real time.

i will certainly not comment on that.

on the second point i will not comment.

i have no particular comment on any particular commercial bank.

i never comment on market observations in real time.

you could have asked a question on rumours about markets, exchange rates, etc. -- we never comment on rumours.

on the first question, i have already said that we never comment on rumours.

we give messages, we do n't comment on rumours.

i will not comment on the saying itself !

of course, we are analysing that but we have no particular comment on that.

on the second question, i have no comment.

on your second question as i said before, i do n't want to comment on ecb holdings because i want to see what comes out of the eurogroup tonight.

if the vice-president wants to have any comment on that i will give him the floor, but otherwise we do n't comment on individual institutions, and as you know, we have the separation principle.

i am not going to comment on the performance of individual countries.

you will allow me not to comment on the qualities of all the candidates that are being put forward to succeed mr. noyer.

you need to have a qualified individual with experience in monetary and financial fields, and the rest is a matter of judgement, on which i can not comment.

on the money gap, i prefer not to comment.

and i am not going to comment on particular elements or early stages of the discussions being held, which are fairly intensive and, i am inclined to say, fruitful.

i am not going to comment, of course, on the exchange rate.

i do not think it would be right for me to comment on what another country 's government or national central bank is doing, or is about to do.

{'consider (94)', 'address (26)'}

i would n't say we consider it a risk, as you said, but certainly it has to be addressed.

{'consider (94)'}

so, i can not do anything but warmly welcome this outcome: it shows that the irish people consider fiscal consolidation and fiscal stability to be a basic pillar for growth and further european integration.

i have to say, we have n't actually considered this as an explicit policy issue so far.

i have nothing to report that i would consider positive in this respect at the global level, and i say that sadly, because we are absolutely convinced that it is the openness of the global economy which is one of the crucial factors for global growth.

none of this was considered at all likely before the intensification of the crisis that we have experienced since mid-september and the beginning of october last year.

i will only confirm what i have said, namely that 2% is not the lowest level that we would have decided ex ante, second, that zero interest rates at the present time is not something that we would consider appropriate.

and if you want details on the deliberations of the governing council, i would sum it up in the following fashion: we did not consider at all the option of decreasing rates ; we assessed the situation ; and we concluded that maintaining the present rates was the correct decision, taking everything into account, and that continued vigilance was of the essence.

no, i would say that we have a biennial review and that we have considered since the very beginning of the turbulence that we have no reason to change our framework, so we did not.

first of all, we were not an institution that considered that what we had been observing since 9 august 2007 was a very temporary short-term episode.

and i have to say that -- and this is the reason why we are not changing the structure of our framework -- we consider that it has served us very well, particularly since the beginning of the financial turbulence.

so both five-years and ten-years were decreasing, but the five-year forward break-even itself was quite steady at a level which we do not consider satisfactory.

i can not give you at this stage a position of the governing council as regards the degree to which we would consider that - at the moment at which we are speaking - growth potential has diminished.

on the first question, we have always said that we do not consider the interest rate level and the monetary policy stance, on the one hand, and the non-standard measures, on the other hand, to be moving" in sync ''.

what we see is more or less what we had in mind and we are not too much disappointed because we did not consider extraordinary dynamic growth to be very likely.

so do not consider that i am giving good marks and bad marks.

and i should repeat the very important message that we are withdrawing all the liquidity that is injected in order to fully preserve the monetary policy stance, which we considered should not be changed and which we have again today considered does not need any change.

we do not see similar changes in the profile for next year, and, all things considered, including the profile and the carry-over, we have this slight revision down.

the position of the ecb, which you reflected very well, is that this is not something that we consider urgent or even appropriate in our present situation.

it has, of course, worked in small countries: whether it can work in a large area is difficult to assess, but this is certainly something we have considered.

it is not only a monetary union, it is an economic and monetary union, which is one of the reasons why we consider so important the fiscal side of the coin and on the stability and growth pact.

i said that we saw no reason to consider that we should modify the eurosystem staff projections which were published in december.

as i said, we do not consider, at this stage, that we have to change, in any respect, the present medium-term eurosystem staff projections that we published a month ago.

on the latter, highly political question, we have not considered that.

we would at this stage not suggest that we consider our growth potential for the euro area to have changed significantly upwards.

let me also say that at this stage -- at this very moment, speaking on behalf of the governing council -- we do not consider that we have either sufficient or sufficiently convincing elements to change our previous assessment of growth potential, which is based largely but not exclusively on productivity considerations.

but i do not consider alan to still be a member of the fed.

no, we considered that the situation was such that it was appropriate to decrease rates.

in the present year, the conditions remain for the euro area economy to grow solidly at rates around potential, so, at this stage, we do not project the exceptionally high levels of growth that were observed last year, but we consider that we have sustained growth at rates around potential.

but, as you have said yourself, there is a commitment not to apply it if we consider it not to be appropriate.

on growth, i have already said that our baseline scenario has, at this stage, not been modified significantly ; we consider that we would be around potential.

i think that the main message of the party concerned was that insofar as we have not decided on the calibration and on the transition period, we can not consider that there is already a package that has been decided.

we never considered that there was a" quick fix '' that could allow us to resolve that situation, and everything that has happened since then has proved that our analysis was right.

the medium-term forward interest rates have been fairly well anchored and stable at the levels that we wanted, even though the period over the last three, four, five months has seen a substantial -- i would n't say volatility -- but certainly numerous actions by other jurisdictions, both on the monetary policy front and also, if you consider the volatility that has characterised the emerging market economies, exchange rates and interest rates.

but again, we do not challenge what is considered legitimate according to the rules of eurostat and the commission.

we do not want to challenge what they consider acceptable one-off measures even if we know, and we always make the point very clearly, that the fact that they are not recurrent creates a problem of continuity for the future years.

and we certainly would not and could not recreate that sort of market, because it was considered -- some of these imperfections were actually considered one of the major roots or the major causes of the financial crisis.

they have been successful, not only the various monetary policy announcements, but especially so the negative deposit rate, the negative rate on our deposit facility was considered to be one of the reasons for this success.

i am not saying that 2% was considered ex-ante by the governing council as a low level which could not be displaced.

we do what we have to do at any time ; we consider that it is our duty and our responsibility to be, if i may say so, neither behind the curve nor ahead of the curve, but to do at any given time exactly what we judge appropriate.

on the first point, i would say that we consider that this inertia of inflation over the next months -- and" next months '' might in fact mean several months -- is, as you have suggested, due to factors that would not necessarily be there were a certain period of time to elapse, and we consider that over the longer run we are in line with our definition of price stability.

i can not say anything more, as the governing council has considered that it is not appropriate to go beyond that.

so i am absolutely clear that the governing council has no intention to signal any change in the present interest rates, which we consider appropriate, as i said on behalf of the governing council.

i do not think we should over-assess the gravity of what is happening in dubai, but at the same time we have to consider the impact that a relatively modest event had on the market.

as regards the position of central banks in general, as far as you refer not only to us, but to the community of central banks, i would say that we all consider that being credible in our mandate to deliver price stability not only on a short-term basis, but on the medium and long-term basis, and therefore, solidly anchoring inflationary expectations, is of the essence.

in any case, we consider that there is still a high level of uncertainty, and we consider the risks to be broadly balanced.

we do not consider emergency liquidity assistance to be monetary financing ; it is one of our instruments.

i do n't underestimate that when i said clearly on behalf of the governing council that it was possible to increase rates today, it was considered an important message.

so that is the great challenge of our time, and we do not exclude ourselves from that challenge, we consider that we have a role to play.

and we are a new institution, which was ten years old, and we were not considered particularly clumsy at that time.

we do not consider that new information has arisen that would change our judgement.

she said that she fully supports our independence and she did not consider that our independence had been" polluted '' in any respect.

so be aware that short-term evolutions should not be considered important in the conduct of our policy when we have to cope with shocks because what counts is that our policy is driven in an eighteen-months ' to two-years ' perspective to deliver price stability in line with our definition.

we do not consider that, for instance, the profile of growth next year has changed.

in our understanding of the overall assessment of the functioning of markets at the level of the euro area as a whole and taking into account the fact that the market has not been functioning correctly until now at least, we still consider it necessary to have this non-standard way.

at the present moment, we do not modify our working assumption of a gradual recovery and we consider that nothing goes against this overall, taking all figures, data, surveys and hard figures into account, and so we do not change our vision.

in our deliberations we always, as you know, consider all arguments, and the assets and liabilities associated with all decisions -- and, just as we considered not moving to be an inappropriate decision, we also considered moving by fifty basis points to be an inappropriate decision.

so i do not consider that this is something we should look at now.

it is not our intention to change our deposit rate and we consider that what has been done elsewhere is within a context which is very different from ours with regard to the handling of the money market.

i say again, as i said three months ago, that there should be no interpretation in terms of the monetary policy stance of this gradual and timely unwinding of the non-conventional measures, and, as far as the monetary policy stance is concerned, we consider it to be appropriate.

on the first point, i have no information on that and i consider it would be a very extraordinary, bad decision.

we are not particularly happy because they are not materialising, we consider that it is exactly what should be observed.

why has n't the euro area, or more generally, europe, been able to come up with a situation which could be considered as, i would say as normal, in this situation, as an ordinary situation?

we believe that this is the most likely event and, therefore, we do not consider this course of the growth rate of m3 as a source of future inflationary pressures.

the default or selective default could be a consequence of some of the actions and then we would say:" no, it is not what we would consider appropriate in the circumstances ''.

as regards the currency situation, i do not consider that you can compare the yen, one of the major currencies of the advanced economy, to the swiss franc.

with regard to those who fear for our credibility, i would draw their attention to the fact that, of the big central banks of the advanced economies in the world, we are the only one that is taking a number of decisions that are not generally considered anodyne and not generally considered without any element of credibility for the central banks taking such decisions.

as i said, what we see is that our fellow citizens are not happy with the present level of cpi or headline inflation -- understandably so -- and that they consider price stability to be of extreme importance.

we did not even consider the issue in the governing council today.

{'discuss (250)', 'address (26)'}

-lsb- asked to address second question on extension of qe -rsb- that 's what i 'm saying: we did n't discuss it.

{'discuss (250)', 'answer (132)'}

the answer is no, we do n't see a risk of scarcity, and we have not discussed other measures.

i 'm sorry, the answer to the second question is the same: we never discussed it.

on the first just let me answer, saying that there were two issues that were not discussed today -- well, probably many others -- but as far as relevant to our today 's decisions, two.

well, the answer to the second question is, we really -- no, we have n't discussed it at all.

i 'm sorry, we have n't discussed that at all so i ca n't answer this question now.

well, i 'll quickly and readily answer the second question immediately, saying that i do n't even want to contemplate that, and based on the greek government leaders ' statements, this option is not contemplated by themselves as well, so i 'm not ready to discuss any possible situation like that.

we have n't discussed either, so i ca n't answer the first question other than to say that we 've not discussed them.

i 'll answer the second question, because the first question has a quick answer ; we have n't discussed it.

answering the second question first, we actually did n't discuss that to any extent other than saying two things that i can remember of our very short discussion is that this fiscal expansion is pro-cyclical.

the answer to the second question is no, we did not discuss that.

i will just try to answer in very abstract terms, because this is not an issue that we discussed today, and i think we should focus on the decisions that were discussed by the governing council today.

the answer to the first question is we have n't discussed that.

well, the answer is: no, we did not discuss it.

i think actually you asked two questions to get one answer ; that it really does n't pay at all to discuss the existence of something that 's irreversible.

in answer to your first question, no, we did not discuss interest rate changes.

in answer to the second question: we have n't discussed anything like that.

the answer to the second question is that we have n't discussed that.

the answer to the first question is no, we have n't discussed changes.

i 'm sorry, but the answer to the second question is, we have n't discussed that, and to the first as well.

the answer to the first question is we have n't discussed that.

the first question 's answer is no, we have n't discussed specific instruments, because you have to understand, we spent several hours discussing how to make the abs programme work.

well, the answer is: no, we have not discussed that.

the second question, i can not answer that: we have n't discussed that.

{'discuss (250)', 'consider (94)'}

i said that we did not discuss a cut, i said that we considered that what we had observed was in line with our definition of price stability.

{'discuss (250)', 'remark (24)'}

whatever the remarks made, but i will not discuss them -- the conclusion was that we had to apply the treaty as it stands.

as far as my remarks in london are concerned, there is not one word of these remarks that had not been discussed in the previous governing council meetings.

{'discuss (250)', 'tell (77)'}

i 'll tell you what happened today: it was not discussed.

and fairly unusually for me, i will also tell you why we did not discuss that -- because we have to have non-standard measures which are effective, and they have to be effective in an area which is fragmented.

we did not discuss that in the governing council and i can only tell you that i do not share this view.

let me tell you that the second point was not discussed, but it 's in a sense part of your first question.

each of us has our own mandate and responsibility, and i have to tell you that all the g7 meetings i have participated in, including when i was not president of the ecb but rather observing what was being discussed, have proved to be very efficient in terms of interaction between the various participants, including the president of the european union and the president of the ecb -- my predecessor as well as myself.

on interventions: whatever we discussed in the governing council that did not lead to certain decisions, i am not going to tell you.

{'discuss (250)', 'touch (8)'}

the japanese have not yet been in touch with me, nor with others, about what they want to discuss in tokyo on exchange rates.

{'discuss (250)'}

that is not something that we have discussed recently.

as not only markets but also survey indicators show, the second consideration is that while the hicp path is what it is, as i have just discussed with you a moment ago, inflation excluding food and energy drifts slightly higher over the forecast horizon.

let us not forget that all the data that we discussed today do not take into account the impact of the second lrto.

we did n't discuss the issuer limit, and our decision to change the issue limit is simply to ensure the smooth implementation of the current programme.

we have n't discussed that, and in a sense it 's kind of -- it would test, i think, our credibility if we were to change target when it 's taking more effort to achieve that target, so there has n't been any discussion about changing target of inflation.

we have n't discussed that.

but again we have not discussed any of these particular dossiers.

but again, we did not discuss any particular dossier and we did not discuss either today 's financial times.

we did not discuss any particular dossier -- i think you have in mind one particular dossier -- and it is our previous constant position that the european rules of the single market have to be respected.

on the second question, i would say that we did not discuss any particular dossier.

we did not discuss this and we do not discuss trade.

as to your second question, we have not discussed it at all today.

on the last question, no, we did not discuss that.

within this framework, we did not discuss the introduction of thresholds or quantitative benchmarks.

with regard to the first question, no we did not discuss that.

no, we never discussed anything like that

on the abs, we did not discuss the scope of the abs, other than again reaffirming that it should be real economy-oriented, oriented towards non-financial companies of the private sector.

but the bottom line is we have never discussed it. ''

no, we did not discuss that.

we do not push ; we comply with legislation ; we do not discuss legislation.

we comply with laws ; we do not discuss laws.

on the first question, we do not discuss the treaty.

i did not discuss that with the governing council.

as regards the letter, it was a personal, individual letter, which jean-claude juncker did not, to my knowledge, discuss with the members of the eurogroup.

i do not have anything specific in mind that i can discuss today, but this is certainly an issue that is very close to the governing council 's heart -- if i can use that word in relation to central bankers.

we did not discuss this in any depth today, but there are a whole range of instruments that we can activate, if needed.

no, we did not discuss any specific move on interest rates but we certainly discussed our general monetary policy stance, which we found accommodative in view of an economic outlook that is becoming more uncertain.

or we did n't even discuss high-class problems of the kind that i was asked before.

we did n't discuss tapering this time, by the way.

we did n't discuss tapering last time.

well, the response to the first question is we have n't discussed that.

we have n't discussed it anyway.

on the ncbs, we did not really have a deep discussion about that issue, but we certainly discussed it and we basically have not reached a conclusion yet.

we have n't discussed it even when to discuss it.

we actually have n't discussed anything about reinvestment policy, but you can have another question if you want.

now, on the reinvestment, we have n't discussed it.

on the second question, no, we did n't discuss the reinvestment policy today.

on the interest rate on the deposit facility, i said before -- i do n't know whether it was the last meeting or the meeting before that when i was asked whether it was discussed, i had said it was not discussed.

we have n't really discussed the second point.

so it 's just we have n't discussed it.

let 's say we have n't discussed whether to discuss it yet or not.

and we discussed the assessment of the economy and we discussed the broad macroeconomic projections, but we did n't discuss anything else.

we are not discussing this in the governing council at the moment.

since then, we frankly never discussed this.

no, we have n't discussed either point.

about the expectation, what 's going to be in the agenda for the december meeting, we have n't really yet discussed that at all.

i 'm sorry to say, but we have n't discussed that.

sometimes it 's also important to say what we did not discuss, and we did n't discuss tapering or the intended horizon -- and here comes the second question -- of our asset purchase programme.

no, we did n't discuss this.

on the other point, we did n't discuss it.

we have n't discussed that.

no, we have n't discussed either today.

first of all, on the first question, the sequencing: i do n't think there is any need to discuss this now.

i will simply repeat that we did not discuss the matter and i have nothing further to say.

no, i think i have given you a full and comprehensive view of what we discussed today.

we have n't discussed that but, as i said, we gave you enough evidence that it was the case all the time that when the governing council needed flexibility to carry through its monetary policy it was successful in finding it.

we have n't discussed what we are going to do in view of september, or even less so what we are going to do after september.

i reviewed the financial markets developments a moment ago, and i think i put them in the proper context, but nothing like boj was discussed.

we also were unanimous in communicating no change to the forward guidance ; and also we were unanimous in setting no precise date for when to discuss changes in the future.

so there was no tapering and what we 're going to do in the future was not discussed today.

on the sovereign bonds, i have already said that we did not discuss the point.

on the second question, we did not discuss anything like default or such a default procedure at all.

on your first question, we did not discuss this option.

no, we did not discuss that.

so that is just procedure, but in substance we did not discuss it.

i do not know whether, and if, the french and german governments have discussed this matter.

first, on the structure of the organisation and the institutional process: i am not aware of what was discussed because i was not there.

we have not discussed it today, but we have discussed it many times before.

and that 's an entirely different issue which we do n't deal with here, but the natural place to discuss these issues is the basel committee -- any change to the treatment of government bonds will have to be agreed at a global level.

your other question was about tapering: no, we have not discussed it.

as regards the mros after the first quarter we did not discuss which way we will proceed.

we have not yet discussed any coordinated action, but we have periodic exchanges anyway.

regarding the possibility of the ecb purchasing such instruments, it was never discussed and i think it will never be discussed, let alone decided.

on the second point, as i said before, we discussed all instruments, but frankly we did not discuss buying equity.

now, let me say offhand what was not discussed ; what was not discussed was the sequence.

no, we have n't discussed really the scarcity issue because so far we 've given plenty of evidence that whenever there were... by the way these problems, these doubts were present at the very beginning of our programme.

there is nothing to say about what we discussed and the same applies to the general situation in italy.

no, we have not discussed scenarios of different impacts that the crisis could have.

we did not discuss this question at all and the governing council has full confidence in nout wellink.

we have n't discussed that at all today.

so we did not discuss it.

exchange rate questions are not part of what we are presently discussing.

my expectation of course in 2020, our inflation rate will converge to our objective, but we did n't discuss it today.

well, i 'm not in a position to say that because as i said, we have n't discussed the first part ; namely the actual numbers for what the app programme is going to be in next year.

we did not explicitly discuss investors ' confidence in the euro, but we did, very explicitly, discuss the development of the euro, which includes, of course, an assessment of investors ' confidence.

on your second point, we did not discuss the issue of whether or not this would be the lowest level.

on the third question, no, we have estimates of course but the range of these estimates is so wide that i do not want discuss them now.

something of the sort, but i do not think it has any relevance to the issues we discussed today.

no, we did not discuss this at the level of the governing council.

well, the reason why we did n't discuss monetary policy per se is that the reading of the current developments since the beginning of the year is actually very important in deciding the next steps.

first of all, the interesting thing is that we did n't discuss monetary policy per se.

so, not only did we discuss it but we took a decision.

we did n't want to discuss today the specifics of the instruments, but rather to determine and assess the stance that we may have to take in march.

we do not think so and we will also discuss that in a thorough manner in the context of the forthcoming euro 11 meetings.

we do n't discuss policy measures for the effect they might have on the exchange rate ; that is going to be determined by the marketplace.

whether sudden stop becomes an extension of the programme or becomes tapering, that 's what you want to know ; we have n't discussed that either.

we never discussed that, period.

we have n't discussed it.

we did n't discuss this today, by the way, but the last discussion we had a month-and-a-half ago showed that the governing council, its vast majority, wants to keep, to retain the open-endedness feature of the asset purchase programme as it 's been designed in the last monetary policy council.

first of all, we did n't discuss cutting the link.

we have n't discussed that today.

but we have n't discussed cutting the link, no.

we did not discuss it in substance.

on the first and we were always -- and it goes back in tradition -- not to discuss risks about inflation.

we were so focused on our decision on monetary policy that we did n't discuss this.

well, we have n't discussed this today, really.

with regard to the first question, no, we have not discussed decreasing the rate on the deposit facility.

as regards the european framework, i will only say at this stage that the governing council has not taken a definitive position on this and that it is something that it will continue to discuss.

we have not discussed this today in the governing council, but on one thing - on interest rates - i would like to say that it is our impression that the way in which long-term interest rates, in particular, have developed over the last few days can be interpreted as an indication that inflationary expectations of the market remain very, very subdued indeed and that there are thus no expectations in the market of a change even in the longer term.

but let me also say that no action is being envisaged and no policy has ever been discussed by the governing council to this extent.

we do not have any new figures compared with what we had discussed before.

it was not discussed in the governing council, so i that have nothing to report in this respect.

so, we were unanimous, but that does not mean that we did not discuss very thoroughly all the elements that are making up the situation we are facing at the global level and at the european level.

it is not customary for me to say in advance what we will discuss in the g7 meetings.

we did not discuss matters related to your second question.

we have not discussed what we are going to do next year in terms of monetary policy.

so, we did not discuss it.

i gave you that information but we did not discuss this question.

no, we did not discuss covered bonds at all.

we did not discuss anything else.

but as i said, i do n't want to discuss further because we are in the course of assessing this letter and preparing our response.

in this sense our monetary policy accompanies the recovery, as i had chance to say in a speech some time ago -- but we have n't discussed the link.

as regards your first question, we have not discussed limits.

i am afraid i can not discuss the evaluation of the strategy, which is under way at the moment.

but we do not know when that will happen, and the" when '' is very determinant for the kind of scenario you are discussing.

first of all, arcelor and mittal steel are not in the services sector, if i may say so we will not discuss that at all.

taking your questions in reverse order, we did not discuss stopping the minimum bid rate.

we did not discuss turkey.

i have to say that when you look at the figures extracted from the various bond markets -- it 's not literature that we are discussing its fact, figures, numbers, arithmetic -- when we said that we would moderately increase our rates, we gained in terms of credibility.

we have not discussed tightening the collateral rules and they can be much looser.

but we did not discuss tightening the collateral rules.

on your first question, we did n't discuss it.

on the first question, tapering: we have n't really discussed policy options because this meeting has been in a sense thoroughly prepared through very good and intense work by the committees of the national central banks and the ecb.

well, we did n't discuss the reinvestment policies you have noted ; we will discuss it in the future meetings.

well, frankly, we did n't discuss if we want to raise rates.

we have n't decided, so we are going to discuss it in one of the future meetings.

we have n't discussed this as far as i know.

well, on the first point, we did not discuss an interest rate cut.

however, if these policies produce consequences for the exchange rates that do not reflect the g20 consensus, we will have to discuss this.

i mean, exit strategies are really a high-class problem, and we 're really far from that, so we 're not discussing anything about that.

we did not discuss a rate cut today.

first of all, we did not discuss that point today.

in the present particular case, even if the governing council did not discuss that, i would say that it does not seem to me in line with what would be appropriate.

on the question on whether or not we discussed it -- we discussed clearly the situation and we envisaged advantages and inconveniences associated with the possible decisions we could take.

well, we did not discuss in detail the preparation of the g7 meeting.

we have not discussed this and, as usual, we will not commit to any further measures.

on the first question, we did not discuss any other non-standard measures.

with regard to addicted banks, we did not discuss the question of providing liquidity or the liquidity framework today, so i have nothing more to say than what i have already said, namely that it was an issue that we were meditating upon.

on your third point, we did not discuss the liquidity framework at today 's governing council meeting.

no, we did not discuss that matter this morning.

i note that this is not at all what we discussed this morning.

no, this time i would n't say that we 've discussed the side effects and risks, but it 's a discussion that we have ongoing anyway.

and we should n't discount another fact that we have not been discussing so far: that there are a series of factors coming into play in the years ahead which tend to reduce the excess liquidity.

we did not discuss this in the governing council, so that is my personal view.

we did not discuss the situation of specific countries.

it has not been thought about and it is not being discussed, not only because we are proud of our own independence, but also because they might not even want to know.

as regards france, we did not discuss, and the governing council does not have a position on the french reform.

to the first question, basically we have n't discussed this.

now, frankly we have n't discussed and we have n't -- as i said last time, we have n't even discussed when we are going to discuss it.

now, we have n't discussed either the" operation twist '' or whether to reinvest in different maturities.

i think what i said last time -- and i can confirm that even though we have n't discussed, i believe the governing council would be pretty unanimous on that -- is that the capital key will remain the guiding principle.

i 'm sorry, both questions might be in principle very interesting questions but we have n't discussed that.

no, we did n't discuss composition.

but we did n't discuss really the composition.

we actually did n't discuss alternatives scenarios.

we did n't discuss parameters or limits, anything today.

no, we have not discussed that.

but there was another thing we did n't discuss: tapering.

on the first question, we did not discuss any prospective or current change in interest rates.

so while we do n't have any indication that higher prices for some specific types of collateral are hampering the transmission of our monetary policy, we have nevertheless discussed what the ecb could do, and i just announced one of the things that will be detailed in the 3:30 p.m. announcement.

as for energy markets, although these were not discussed today, i do hope that the summit in barcelona will give further impetus to the privatisation and liberalisation of the energy market.

i did not indicate a specific date when it will be discussed.

on the -- if any -- reform proposals of the decision-making bodies of the ecb, we are in the midst of the exercise ; we are discussing it intensively among the 18 members of the governing council and at this stage, i really can not say anything more than that.

{'elaborate (58)', 'answer (132)'}

that is something i do n't want to elaborate on any further but that is my answer.

on the first point, that 's what i meant when i said that i can not elaborate more when i answered before because we are consulting with the rest of the governing council.

the answer to the second question is: i ca n't elaborate.

{'elaborate (58)', 'consider (94)'}

i elaborated on the economic analysis and on the monetary analysis a moment ago, and i do not want to repeat what i already said -- that we consider that the monetary analysis gives us very pertinent information.

{'elaborate (58)', 'discuss (250)'}

i think that 's the text, that 's what we 've discussed ; we have n't elaborated on that.

{'elaborate (58)', 'react (17)'}

and if we came to the judgement that the exchange rate developments are really seriously out of line with the economic fundamentals of the various large areas in the world - europe and the united states - then we would probably react, but i can not elaborate on that any more than i have done right now.

{'elaborate (58)', 'tell (77)'}

what i told you concerns may, and i do not want to elaborate more on that.

{'elaborate (58)'}

on the first point, i will not elaborate more on what i have already said.

but i will not elaborate more on that.

but at this stage i do n't want to elaborate more on that.

i will not elaborate on that.

but we did not elaborate on this any further.

but i do n't know enough about the specificities of this statement to elaborate more than that ; perhaps i will know more tonight.

with regard to why we think that zero interest rates would be very inconvenient, i will not elaborate any further.

i will not elaborate on that ; we had absolutely no pre-commitment to any particular non-standard measure.

i do not want to elaborate on that !

this is very important and i will not elaborate more on this because it is the fundamental message that we give.

again, we said very carefully that we urge all of them to live up to their responsibilities and i will not elaborate further on that.

i will not elaborate on the second quarter or the third quarter of this year.

`` social partners '' means that one has to take into consideration everything that i have said on competitiveness, on the level of unemployment and on the need to maintain price stability, so i will not elaborate further.

i do not want to elaborate too much on that, because there are still investigations under way and we will see exactly what it is all about.

so i can not elaborate a lot about what we are going to do next.

i will not elaborate on whether or not it announces anything else, you might ask the governor of the bank of china and the chinese authorities.

but i would not elaborate more on that.

i do not want to elaborate further on that.

well, first of all i would say that we have expressed ourselves sufficiently clearly in real time not to have to elaborate too much on our analysis today.

so i will not elaborate more than that.

as regards the growth differential between the united states and europe, i will not elaborate too much on that.

i will not elaborate on the figures because we will, as you know, publish them next week in the monthly bulletin.

i will not elaborate more on that.

i do not want to elaborate more on that but it is extremely visible and it is clear that the world is very complex and that you have a combination of forces that are pushing inflation at a global level down and others that are pushing inflation up.

certainly across the atlantic the federal reserve has a very important responsibility, and it is not my responsibility to elaborate on that.

as regards your second question i can not elaborate too much on that because it would take a long time, but we believe that our own monetary policy concept, which is based on two pillars -lrb- i.e. economic analysis and monetary analysis -rrb-, allows us -- thanks to the monetary analysis and the fact that we have a medium-term definition of price stability -- to incorporate elements that are associated with rapid increases in outstanding credit, including the impact on asset inflation, which could itself create inflation through the wealth channel and, if boom is followed by bust, destabilise prices through the deflationary risks that could materialise.

i do not want to elaborate any further on that.

and i think i will leave it at that, without elaborating further.

so i do not want to elaborate more on that.

along different lines, which i do not want to elaborate on too much: more structural analysis, more understanding of what is necessary in the period of fat cats and affluent episodes in the economic cycle.

so i would not elaborate more on that.

i will not elaborate more.

on the independence of central banks: of course, i do n't elaborate on our own institution.

i will not elaborate on that question.

i will not elaborate at all on what decision the executive board will take when the time comes.

i will not elaborate on other measures.

but i do not want to elaborate on the economic reasoning behind this, namely that if you have less debt then you are at an advantage because you have less service of the debt and more room for manoeuvre than other countries ; and why encourage a country to go on piling up debt until it reaches 60% when that particular country could be much better off with less debt?

again, i do not want to elaborate further on the stability and growth pact ; i have said very clearly what our current attitude is.

i can not elaborate on that.

i do not want to elaborate too much on that again, because we still have the same position and because i have reiterated on behalf of the governing council that very same position, namely that we are on board for improvement and implementation as regards, in particular, the preventive arm of the pact, depending, of course, on careful examination of the very precise orientations that would be retained by the council of ministers of finance, which is the responsible body.

i do not want to elaborate more on that.

as i was saying, we still have all our tools to continue to pursue our objectives within our mandate and, as i said before, i do not think i want to elaborate on further non-standard measures at this point in time.

and, frankly, on the other part of your question and your colleague 's question, i would say that, at this point in time, we are not really elaborating on various non-standard situations in which we may find ourselves.

first of all it is extremely important that the programme is applied, and i shall not elaborate any more on that.

i will not elaborate on that, it has been made public.

and i do not want to elaborate too much on these reasons, but publicly, yesterday, on the occasion of the international monetary conference, together with ben bernanke and toshihiko fukui, we had elaborated on that and i had myself said: look, you have perhaps five reasons why we are observing that ex ante savings are at a global level superior to ex ante investment.

i do not want to elaborate more on that, other than to say that, in any case, the needle of our compass is that we make a judgement on what is necessary to counter inflationary risks at any given moment.

{'examine (18)', 'answer (132)'}

well, you see, i have no answer to the first question because we are actually looking at this operation right now -- the governing council and ecb staff are actually examining it.

{'examine (18)', 'consider (94)'}

on the first point, i have said already that 2% was not considered by the governing council to be a lower limit and that we would examine the situation at our next meeting on the basis of our monetary policy strategy and the information we will have.

we consider that the possibility is not excluded that, after having carefully examined the situation, we could decide to move our rates by a small amount in our next meeting in order to secure the solid anchoring of inflation expectations, taking into account the situation.

{'examine (18)'}

any proposals that could emerge from the eu council will certainly be examined very carefully by us, with the idea that we can improve things.

i said that we did not examine cutting interest rates.

in any case, it seems to me that it is something which should be examined, again, not only in the european context, but also at the global level.

it is also clear that we are observing in certain economies, not in all economies and certainly not in our economy as a whole, a phenomenon of asset inflation in the real estate sector which has to be examined very carefully.

this information was not examined by the governing council and i would certainly not draw any general conclusions from it.

i have to say that we did not examine this situation and i do not have any specific analysis that i can refer to.

on the first question, i do not want to launch into the discussions that take place in the basel committee chaired by nout wellink, the governor of the central bank of the netherlands, and the work of the financial stability forum, which is also examining the report of the basel committee.

in any case, now that we have been examining the euro area for 11 years, we have observed that you have the same overall big business cycle at the level of the euro area as a whole, and then you have country differences compared with the business cycle of the euro area.

the unemployment criterion is not on the list of criteria that we will have to examine.

when we know that the present market correction is influencing all of the economy, including the real economy, it would be paradoxical if we did not examine the financial sector carefully, when it has such an influence on the real economy.

i have not said that and we will continue to examine the situation and look very carefully at all the information we are getting from the markets.

but it is not something that we have examined today.

i have always said that we have no other appreciation when we examine the monetary policy than to make a synthesis out of all the information that is available and, of course, exchange rates are part of that available information.

{'expect (82)', 'answer (132)'}

to the first question i 'll answer, basically, reading again what is in the introductory statement: additional stimulus beyond the impetus already taken into account is expected from the monetary policy measures still to be implemented, namely the tltro ii and the cspp, and will contribute to further rebalancing the risks to the outlook for growth and inflation.

{'expect (82)', 'anticipate (20)'}

so we do not expect and do not anticipate that the conversion itself will have a significant impact on inflation.

{'expect (82)', 'clarify (6)'}

finally," close to 2% '' clarifies what we have done so far, what we have had in mind so far and what we will try to continue to achieve, and if the next four-and-a-half years are marked, as were the past four-and-a-half years, by inflation expectations of below 2%, in a range of 1.7% to 1.9%, i think that this would be a result that perhaps nobody would have expected before the euro was introduced.

{'expect (82)', 'comment (450)'}

we thought, taking into account the trend of the baseline scenario and taking into account the risks to price stability, according to our analysis of their presence and their dynamics, that it was the right decision not to move this time whilst, at the same time, clearly, we have increased vigilance and i also commented on what is presently expected by markets.

i do not comment on the profile of expected market interest rates.

do n't expect any comment from me.

and my conclusion, i have made very clear, is that no further comment is to be expected from me either on that interview, or on interventions.

and i do not expect that they would comment on what we do ourselves

of course, i can not comment either on the level that there is or that we expect.

so i do not want to comment on one particular prior indication that the fourth quarter in one particular country might have been different from what was expected.

as regards your third question on the collateral rules, i said what i was expecting, taking into account the very convincing decisions taken by greece, and i have no other comment on that.

{'expect (82)', 'consider (94)'}

we expect, of course, in the medium and long run that, if we continue to be steady on structural reforms, we will observe -- progressively -- something of that sort, but so far, we do not consider it to be documented or substantiated and that we could retain it.

{'expect (82)', 'discuss (250)'}

we did not discuss a precise figure but we expect that whatever will come from the various institutions before the march meeting will confirm what we trust, namely that global growth and european growth would be lower than has been previously projected.

{'expect (82)', 'speculate (35)'}

we do expect a continuation of market volatility, certainly until the referendum ; i do n't want to speculate about the outcome of the referendum, but probably even after the referendum.

{'expect (82)', 'tell (77)'}

you would n't expect him to apply for credit, and that 's where the example tells that we need structural reforms as well.

{'expect (82)'}

if there are no new shocks, and with all other things being equal, we expect inflation to fall below 2% in the course of this year, which would bring it into line with our definition of price stability.

so i do not expect -- and there is no reason to expect -- a different monetary policy on the basis of the clarification of the strategy, which was decided on today.

my term runs for another three years and i do not expect another evaluation within that period.

for the euro area we do not expect recessionary developments.

but, by and large, i would read the recent developments not so much as an example of market fragility, but simply as an example that markets are expecting reforms.

it does not say" it is expected '' and it does not say" an international institution expects '' ; it says" we -- the policy-makers -- expect the key ecb interest rates to remain at the present or lower levels for an extended period of time ''.

i quoted, in my introductory statement, a range of forecasts - effectively - and not the german ones in particular, which, if i look at the forecasts as we know them - they have not all been published yet - of the imf, of the oecd and of other international organisations, they all revise the expected growth in the euro area and will, and they will also revise the euro area downwards.

i would not expect that.

i do not want to repeat too lengthily what i have said, but i would say that, regarding risks to price stability over the medium term, unexpected further declines in commodity prices or a stronger than expected slowdown in the economy could put downward pressure on inflation, whilst upside risks to price stability could materialise if the falling commodity prices were to reverse and if domestic pressures turn out to be stronger.

that is, first of all the public statement i made vis-à-vis the european council, that i was appointed for eight years and that i did not expect or regard it as likely that i would serve the full term.

now, as you know, we do not in the interim publish the results of these projections, but i can confirm that the expected inflation, both for the rest of this year, as well as in 2004 and 2005, is not fundamentally, is not essentially, affected by changes that have taken place in the exchange rate or in oil prices.

well, i do not know what financial markets will expect, but we think with this move we have cleared the horizon, although it may be a moving horizon.

we will not be surprised - on the contrary, to the extent that oil price and exchange rate developments work their way through in the coming months, we do expect, for a brief period in the coming months, that the figure might even slightly exceed that of 2%, before dropping back to 2% or less, so that, on average, we are somewhat less comfortable than the commission seems to feel.

it will have an impact if it perseveres, but we are not sure that it will and we do not expect it to persevere.

we do n't expect anything other than our baseline scenario.

that means that the extraordinary growth rates which we have seen in the united states for a prolonged period of time and which we and other authorities did not regard as being sustainable in the very long term are coming down from annualised rates of 5 1/2% or even close to 6% per quarter in the direction of lower rates for what seems - to me - to be a normal and to be expected - may i call it - soft landing in the united states, which is in the interest of the entire world.

but i also added the warning that for the next few months base effects will make it look as if inflation is hardly falling any longer, so we can not expect big movements in inflation over the next few months.

as regards the preparation for this -- i would say very impressive -- press conference, to be frank, i did not expect that you would be that numerous, i did as i always do.

no government, no state can expect any special treatment from us.

and with regard to how seriously the outcome of the us elections will affect the foreign exchange markets, i have heard from market participants so far - and i do not have any better sources than that - that they expect the effects - whatever the outcome will be - to be limited.

but i can just confirm that this move that we expect is not an objective per se, but that what we expect to happen will probably take place in all fields.

i do not expect that we will have any difficulties at any future meetings.

the second revision will follow, but we need some more months to work on it ; we will publish it as soon as we have it, but we do not expect it to show the same dynamics, although it will go in the same direction.

we never said that everybody could expect an increase of rates every meeting, every two meetings or every three meetings.

the advantage of having decreased both the level of the main refinancing operation and that of the deposit facility is that we still have the full corridor going down, without having to re-narrow immediately the present corridor for our very short-term rates, so that we can expect the very short term money market rates, particularly the overnight rate, to reflect fully this reduction.

as regards the deposit rate, i think it would be fair to say that, at 0.25%, it is at an extremely low level, and i do not expect that we will make any change to this level in the period to come.

activity in the secondary market has not increased as much as we would have liked, but i expected that this would be the case.

on your first question, i will not give you -- and you do not expect me to -- any precise date.

and one of the reasons why we have n't expected a serious pick-up in credit for a while is that there is a lagged relationship between credit flows and the business cycle 's recovery, and that 's certainly something we want to have our eyes on in the coming weeks and, i would say, the coming months too.

i can make no forecast about how long we will remain on that track, but i would expect us to be on it for a considerable time to come.

i do not expect major disasters, but it is quite important that full light be shed and that there is full transparency.

we proved that we were pragmatic -- nobody could have expected that our balance sheet would double since july 2007 -- and i exclude nothing ex ante.

on the first point, i certainly wish that everything goes according to schedule and i do not expect political developments in several euro area countries to delay the developments on the srm.

i will not give you and nor do you expect me to give you a figure, but it is our intention not to find ourselves in a position that would constitute a liquidity trap.

and i believe the markets did not expect us to wait.

it is not only the mandate given to us by the treaty but also our responsibility vis-à-vis the households of europe and the fellow citizens of europe, who expect us to deliver price stability.

we do not expect sudden and quick results, but it is pretty certain that the results will come.

at this stage, i will only say that i do not think the market is expecting us to prolong the one-year ltro beyond that which has already been decided, and i will say nothing to discourage this current market sentiment.

i am very grateful that you do n't expect me to reply in french, because my french is getting a bit rusty.

let me just try to sort of recap, without going through - actually, i expected a question like that, so i thought i should read through the speech again, but i 'll save you from that.

and, we do n't expect in any respect that it will hamper our attachment to the delivery of price stability in line with our definition.

so, we are not passively expecting future economic developments.

on the downside risks -- and there i am not on the external, but on the domestic, side of the coin -- i would say that since q2 and q3 of last year we have observed something materialising which had been expected for quite a period of time, namely the pick-up in investment.

i see no danger of deflation and, contrary to what you are suggesting, inflation is not falling faster than we expect it to.

with regard to the first question, we do not expect the euro area -- either in aggregate or even individual countries -- to exceed the 3% deficit limit.

but do not expect any decision before, we have engaged in preparing for the second series of banknotes to be put into circulation.

what i can say, and not regarding the united states in particular, but with regard to the global economy as a whole, and us, practically all the hard data and facts and figures that we have observed since the start of the recovery -lrb- for us this was in the third quarter of 2009 and in sync with the global recovery -rrb- have been better than expected.

and we always said that we were not expecting growth to be particularly buoyant and that we were looking at growth as being uneven.

i am not so pleased that the acceleration of output, which we expected, is taking so long to take hold.

and, for that, i have not received a specific invitation and i do not expect to receive one.

i would not say that, because what we are expecting is a normal behaviour of the market.

as regards the dialogue with jean-claude juncker in preparation of the g7, we have never had any problem of that kind in the past, and i do not expect any such problem in the future.

we do not expect that a change in the monetary policy stance is going to have a significant effect on economic activity in the euro area as a whole.

second, the smp: do n't expect me to say anything more than what i have said before.

of course, i say" gradual '', because given the seriousness and the gravity of the previous situation, you would not expect such a change to take place all of a sudden.

frankly i do not expect banks ' behaviour to change dramatically in any way.

banks have raised capital and substantially reduced their leverage, which is not what we expected three or four years ago.

the size and the complexity of these two ltros are such that we can not expect to see immediate action, and especially as far as the transmission of the ltros into higher credit flows goes.

and of course, and this is another issue on which my views are well known, in this country at any rate, i believe that public finance in this country should have sufficient room for manoeuvre in order to better cope with expected substantial increases in age-related expenditure, because greece is faced with one of the worst problems of an ageing population, which will have serious consequences for both healthcare and pension system expenditure.

i do not expect that.

we do not yet see signs of a slowing down, although we expect it over time - but the lags are long, as you know - to do so as a result of our increase in interest rates last month.

{'explain (34)', 'answer (132)'}

on the second point, i can not answer because of the reasons i explained before.

when i answered anatole kaletsky and said that i agreed with him that the growth differential between the two major economic areas in the world was a large part of the explanation for the exchange rate developments, i said a large part, i.e. there is more which i can not fully explain.

well i already answered the first question in the sense that there was basically no proposal to cut rates for the reasons that i have explained, that our decision last month was justified by facts and had produced exactly the desired outcomes.

{'explain (34)', 'consider (94)'}

and we explained why, despite the fact that there is very abundant liquidity, it does not drive us to consider that we have to change the balance of risks to price stability.

but then, as i did in my introductory statement, i paid considerable attention to monetary developments and i extensively explained why we do not consider the very dynamic monetary developments -- as we see them -- as a threat that inflation might again be on its way up.

{'explain (34)', 'discuss (250)'}

last month we did not discuss qe explicitly, which explains why we discussed it this month.

let me remind you that, last month, president trichet said that the possibility of a rate cut was discussed in the meeting, so the decisions today are not something that are out of line with the continuity of analysis and, as the president explained, the indicators since then have only aggravated and justified today 's decisions.

{'explain (34)', 'elaborate (58)'}

so we know, and we have known for a certain period of time, that as far as inflation was concerned we had inertia, persistence of inflation around 2%, and that is something that we explain to ourselves -- i do not want to elaborate more -- with the price of oil, some increase in the price of processed and unprocessed food, and indirect taxation.

{'explain (34)', 'remark (24)'}

not only for the mro -- as i explained in the introductory remarks -- not only for the one-month refinancing operation, but also the three-months allotment.

{'explain (34)'}

we could see that the explanation we had on the portfolio shifts and then the unwinding of portfolio shifts, which was a convincing element in understanding what was happening, does not seem now in our own analysis to be convincing in explaining the present dynamism of m3.

we do not have a target, as you know and -- as mr. issing will explain later -- we wo n't have a target.

may i say that the stream is not coming from all directions, and i think we can do nothing but continue to execute a transparent and understandable policy and to continue to explain that policy by every means we have.

and as i said, the exchange rate itself is not a target for our monetary policy so if you want to know what the difference is, i believe i have very quickly explained that.

i would not say that we have constraints that explain why we could not introduce other non-standard measures.

i can not explain fully, as i have said on many occasions, the level of the euro at any particular moment.

the issue is disputed, you have several schools, but there is a broad agreement that this under-appreciation of risks can not last forever, and that we have to pave the way for an orderly adjustment of this situation at the global level, which might explain why real rates are low, spreads are low, insurance premia are low, volatility is relatively low, all this in historical terms, of course.

so, purchases are intended to run until the end of september 2016, and in any case until we see a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation that is consistent with our aim of achieving inflation rates over etc etc, and then there is this new sentence explaining exactly what we mean by sustained and by medium-term.

and to use a word which i have used in the past, namely" contagion '' -- by the way, i saw it was misinterpreted, i meant contagion between financial markets, and not positive contagion from the financial markets to the real economy where i have been always careful in explaining that it is actually lagging -- you have seen, certainly, that the contagion to other countries has been muted this time, contrary to what might have happened about a year and a half ago, and this is another positive sign.

we changed the state of the art of central banking and today there is no central bank that can move rates or not move rates without explaining why.

but we are not at that stage yet, as i just explained.

it is not for me but for axel weber to explain and i am, in any case, only quoting what he said to give you an overall understanding.

but i should also add that this does not explain the whole of the difference.

so the present inflation rates are not unexpected, and i have explained the reasons there might be.

we are all reflecting, not only in europe but also at the global level, on the different behaviours that we have observed from the employment angle in various countries, to understand better what dynamics are at stake and what might explain those differences.

and as many things in japan are difficult for us to understand, and even more difficult to explain, such is the case with the exchange rate of the japanese yen.

that being said, the working assumption is that the decision that has been taken is implemented fully and rapidly, and it goes without saying that if it is implemented fully and rapidly, it would eliminate the reason why we, from time to time, intervene on the bond market through the non-standard measures that i already explained.

and, again, it does n't change the order of magnitude of m3, but it explains part of the jump we have observed in the most recent months.

taking all this into account, our judgement was that the overall situation, from our standpoint, had not substantially changed, and that explains why we made the diagnosis that we had to keep rates unchanged.

in fact, it should n't be so, but let me explain how we reached the percentage of 20%, and what is the reasoning behind this decision.

we are not there yet and that explains the difference in our stances, basically.

i do not have the exact figures to hand right now, but when you asked me before, i remember giving you the figures explaining why this is so.

so they did not give any reason - and i will explain it in a minute - to change the overall figure.

{'extrapolate (2)'}

so, i would n't extrapolate too much from this repayment pattern, saying that in a month 's time this figure of $ 250 billion would go down to $ 200 billion, or whatever.

the other note of caution that i would sound is that one should not extrapolate too much from the past repayment pattern of ltros.

{'mention (132)', 'comment (450)', 'remark (24)'}

on the second question, i will not comment on the bis remarks but, as you know, in our own proposal made to the van rompuy task force, we mentioned explicitly that we thought that it would be good to have an independent institution, preferably within the commission, that would make an assessment and diagnosis of the fiscal situation of the various countries that are members of the eu and the euro area.

{'mention (132)', 'comment (450)'}

i have no comment on what could be done in the case you mention since it is the responsibility of the executive branches to reflect on this particular question.

i have no particular comment on what has happened in the various markets you mentioned.

taking the first question, i have mentioned a number of times that i never comment on market rumours.

i have no comment at this stage on any new spectacular pan-european measures such as those you mentioned.

i will certainly not comment on the figure that you have been mentioning.

i would not comment on an individual wage settlement such as the one you mentioned.

{'mention (132)', 'consider (94)', 'answer (132)'}

not to mention that the 320 million fellow citizens are extremely attached to us doing our job ; the last survey that we carried out -- and i already said this publicly -- showed that 78% of our fellow citizens answered yes to the question:" do you consider it important that the ecb is independent from governments in order to deliver price stability? ''

{'mention (132)', 'consider (94)'}

on the first question, i would say: no, i have no figure that i would consider pertinent to disentangle the supply and demand constraints that i was mentioning.

as you know, we consider that this was not in line with the rules in the european union, and i must confess that i was myself very heartened to see that the feeling that something abnormal had been done was shared by a major institution: the constitutional court in poland ; so i would mention that as something that we have noted.

we have done a lot of hard work, but a lot of very hard work remains to be done, and it would be an enormous mistake to consider that it is now business as usual, that with the recovery we can be again tranquil and not do the hard work i 've been mentioning.

so i mention that en passant to say very clearly that it is not because, according to the imf, we have at a consolidated level only 6% in the present circumstances that we consider that it is acceptable.

on your first point, we do not envisage at all the solution that you have been mentioning, and, as far as we are concerned, we consider that we have in our framework all the instruments that are necessary.

{'mention (132)', 'discuss (250)', 'remark (24)'}

now, on the first question, i only remarked it was not discussed at all as a sign of the improved climate, so no member of the governing council felt the need to even mention this.

{'mention (132)', 'discuss (250)'}

so our position -- which has also been discussed in the macroprudential forum where we have the governing council and the supervisory board at the same time -- our position has been that first, there is reason to change the present system of zero risk weights ; second, that the revision should not create undue turbulence in markets where sovereign debt is used, like for instance the repo market and in general short-term money markets ; and third, that it should be a change in the international standard, meaning, coming out of the basel committee discussion -- a principle, by the way, that is also mentioned in the five presidents ' report: that annual revision of the sovereign debt risk weight regime should be decided in an international context to ensure a level playing field.

as regards further non-standard measures, on top of the two measures i have mentioned, on top of what we have decided today -- to say that we would continue as long as needed and beyond the end of the year -- we are discussing and studying possible new non-standard measures.

we did not discuss at all the last point that you mentioned.

so far, i would n't want to say anything more than that because we, frankly, did n't discuss that other than in the terms that i mentioned to you.

so i will not mention any particular instrument that we might have discussed.

{'mention (132)', 'elaborate (58)'}

we mention those reasons and i do not want to elaborate again on that.

{'mention (132)', 'expect (82)'}

i did not mention a high exchange rate, but - for the rest - i expect it to happen.

{'mention (132)', 'explain (34)'}

first of all, i did not mention greece myself when i explained what we had decided.

{'mention (132)', 'remark (24)'}

it was to take into account all eventualities, and not only all the other factors i mentioned in the introductory remarks, but also the indirect taxation increases and administrative price increases that are needed in order to bring the fiscal position back in line.

our message applies to absolutely all countries, but in particular to those countries where we think that there might be a risk of the commitments undertaken not being respected ; in particular the berlin commitment, which i mentioned in the introductory remarks, and the full implementation of the stability and growth pact with a number of provisions that we will certainly insist on.

{'mention (132)', 'respond (38)'}

i will respond to your first question, and also to mr atkins 's question, because i did n't mention that, as regards the survey of professional forecasters, it will be published on 15 may in our monthly bulletin.

{'mention (132)', 'talk (39)'}

i recently had talks with both the outgoing governor and the incoming governor of the bank of england and the subject was not mentioned.

{'mention (132)', 'tell (77)'}

as regards the future, i would only say that, as you rightly mention, we never pre-commit: we always do what is appropriate to be able to tell our fellow citizens that we will deliver price stability in the medium term according to our mandate.

it is not a secret: i can tell you that the next survey of professional forecasters will give us, for five years, 1.9%, which is a confirmation of the solid anchoring of inflationary expectations that i mentioned in the introductory statement.

{'mention (132)'}

and i will certainly not mention anything in advance of our meeting other than say what we have already conveyed to the chinese and they know exactly our sentiment on a possible better functioning of the global economy, if some moves were to be made.

we also insist -- although it was n't mentioned in the question -- on the fact that the monetary analysis calls for vigilance, as i said, because we see dynamism of m3 and dynamism, by definition, of the counterparts of m3 which means that we -- from that standpoint -- can see that we could have an overhang of liquidity.

i do not want to pre-empt the result in any respect, but the principles i have mentioned are very strong, which calls, of course, for as thorough as deep and strict as possible an examination of what has happened.

we call upon all countries, not only the countries that you have mentioned, to be ahead of the curve in terms of their public finances, in terms of maintaining their costs at a competitive level ; and last but not least in terms of embarking on the appropriate structural reforms.

going beyond council members ' views and opinions, when i say it is fully justified i look at the facts: at the markets ' reaction, at the rates, at a list of things that i briefly mentioned before -- bank bonds issuance, yields, the repositioning of the forward curve to where it was in may, and so on.

certainly, the price of oil, the price of commodities -- which we did not mention explicitly in our communiqué -- all elements that we can observe at the global level, including what has been observed in emerging asia and so forth, as well, of course, as the constellation of exchange rates: we take all of this into account when we make our judgement.

as far as asset prices are concerned, we did not mention the point in this communiqué.

and we always look at all parameters without any exception in taking our decision, without giving this particular parameter that you have mentioned more than its share in our overall assessment.

we can not do otherwise, because if we were acting in a different scheme, in a different concept, then we would suggest to those lucid observers and market participants that have been mentioned that they can unanchor our inflation expectations, because we would be introducing other considerations than this solid anchoring of inflation expectations which is based on our determination to deliver price stability in the medium term.

you specifically - i noted - did not mention the difference in interest rate levels.

i do n't remember having seen the imf 's managing director mentioning that.

but i will certainly not qualify the absence or presence of the sentence that you mentioned as having any meaning at this stage.

and the differences between earlier and recent projections -- we take into account not only the change in oil prices you mentioned but also other relevant factors that influence the future evolution of prices -- are only slight.

i did not mention that at all.

we do n't see households postponing their spending plans and we do n't see the various features of this phenomenon that i have mentioned on other occasions.

but i do n't exclude of course the by-product that i just mentioned.

and we do hear the noises, we do not know precisely what the credit to the private sector is being used for or where it goes, but we see no signs for the euro area as a whole of a credit crunch in the sense you mentioned.

on the first question, i must say i did not see the message that you mentioned.

i did not mention that, and on the exchange rates, which are, as you know, a very important issue, my terms of reference are very simple.

it has also been effective in reducing the sensitivity of money market rates to news that would not warrant any change in fundamentals or, in other words, the sensitivity of our money market rates to news coming from the rest of the world of the kind i mentioned before.

it is important for price stability and growth and it certainly did n't play any role in today 's discussion and, as far as i can remember, it was not mentioned.

so we have n't seen yet how these better prospects have translated and the reason why we have n't seen i 've mentioned it before.

second, regarding the remarkable capacity of the governing council of the ecb to take decisions that are not usual and to do that rapidly, i can illustrate that in the case of greece, with the three elements that i have mentioned, namely the fact that we called for an additional, major recovery programme, the fact that we were involved and made a judgement ourselves on this programme, and the fact that we confirmed to governments that in our opinion they should step in.

so do not over interpret the fact that we have not mentioned this particular point in the communiqué.

this is a remarkable result, not only because we did what we had said we would do -- in this domain, as in all others, as you know, what counts are facts and figures -- and demonstrated capacity to ensure price stability ; it is also remarkable because, with this record, we would be in a better price stability situation than what has been observed in any particular country in the euro area in either the 1990s or 1980s, not to mention the 1970s, which everybody knows was a period of very high inflation.

of course, that does not mean that you do n't have a number of other factors that are going in the other direction, particularly due to the financial turmoil and all the financial difficulties i have been mentioning.

i can not understand the relationship you mention.

now that we have had still further and sustained increases in oil prices and a prolonged or protracted period of a relatively weak euro, which is not in line with the fundamentals, we have come to the conclusion that it may take somewhat longer than the two to four months i mentioned earlier before price inflation comes back to levels at which we would want them to be.

unfortunately, there are a large number of countries in excessive deficit, so i do not want to mention any particular country.

not to mention, of course, all the figures that i mentioned in the past, namely stock prices, namely spreads, spreads between -- we can say the fragmentation in the eurozone is by and large over - so spreads between core countries and periphery bank lending is over ; spreads between corporates and smes have narrowed down a lot.

but i will not mention any figures.

to the first question i would say: i would not give you any fear i would say only that we are observing that, for the reasons i have already mentioned -- and particularly the three reasons i have already mentioned -- we are observing inflation which is -- as you know -- still over and above 2%, 2.1% in the euro area, which is a little bit over and above what we thought would be the normal evolution a few months ago.

as regards recent messages, i would not quote any particular currency, if you permit me, but as you know, it was made very, very clear by both wim duisenberg here, and by colleagues in the united states that the communiqué which was sent from dubai was clear, without mentioning any particular currency, that we thought that some asian currencies could progressively, smoothly and orderly appreciate over time.

third, we certainly have to try to help with regard to what i would call one of the very important challenges, not for the ecb itself, but for europe as a whole, the structural reforms i have mentioned.

let me only say that what i have seen coming from ireland has been quite impressive in terms of adjusting to new circumstances without losing time and not hesitating to take the kind of bold and courageous decisions i have mentioned in order to put the economy back on its feet.

no, we have deliberately adopted a two-pillar strategy in which we look at a broad range of other indicators - and i have mentioned quite a few to you today - which also determines our attitude, together with the assessment of monetary developments.

i did n't mention it specifically, but, in assessing all the indicators we had, we paid due attention to the fact that in various regions of euro area there seems to be an acceleration in wage demands which, by itself, is adding to our conviction that it is about time to raise interest rates.

in ottawa, on the exchange rate of the euro: i do not regard it as very likely that the exchange rate of the euro will be mentioned in the communiqué that will be issued after the g7 meeting.

and, i hope you will excuse me, but i will not give any judgement on any particular person and certainly not on one of my most outstanding colleagues, whom you just mentioned.

this puts us in a situation where the hump will probably be a little bit longer, and certainly bigger in terms of absolute magnitude, than what we would have had, had we not had to incorporate the two elements that i have mentioned.

i believe that when things are said that are, in my opinion, important and excellent, why not mention them?

on your second question, i am not sure that we can characterise the situation quite as simply as we said, because on the one hand you have the objective figures that you were implicitly mentioning -- the eonia, the euribor interest rates and also, as regards the external side of the coin, exchange rates.

you have not mentioned the collateral issue but it is, of course, part of the interaction we have with the money market.

and, for what will come beyond the second and third quarters, i would refer you to the rendezvous i had already mentioned to your colleagues, to the meeting in september.

i do not want to mention any kind of time-frame for this.

and it is for that reason that we trust that, when we take our decisions on the basis of this aim of preserving and reinforcing confidence, not only are we, of course, doing what we are called upon to do, namely maintaining price stability, but we are also creating an environment favourable to growth and job creation, as i just mentioned.

these are the three main reasons why we should observe a level of inflation during the next few months which is above what we had projected before, which is what all observers had projected before, because they did not take into account the three elements that i have just mentioned.

and so the fact that the governing council of the ecb always calls on member states to stick to the revised pact is fully backed not only by the legal consideration that the pact is the uniting framework on which the executive branches were unanimous, but also by financial consideration and by economic consideration and, particularly, the ricardian effect that i mentioned on behalf of the governing council in this introductory statement, namely the fact that confidence in the sustainability -- the long-term sustainability -- of the fiscal position is very important for the economy -- for the confidence of economic agents, whether households or corporate.

i have nothing else to add, other than to mention that we judge monetary policy to be very accommodative and that we are exercising strong vigilance, which is also in line with the fact that we are not saying that present interest rates are appropriate.

second, i think that the messages that markets are sending -- and not only markets, i think all of you would send the same messages -- to the countries that we mentioned are very simple: stability and reforms.

i did not inform you about interventions, although i could easily mention a figure, the figure is zero, but then we do not have an exchange rate policy, we have a policy aimed at achieving price stability and we do not have an explicit exchange rate policy or exchange rate aim vis-à-vis other major currencies.

at the global level, it is not particularly the sentiment of the governing council of the ecb, it is perhaps rather the sentiment at the level of the g10 and of the global economy meeting that we regularly have in basel - which i have the privilege of chairing - that progressively the very powerful dampening that you mentioned on global inflation stemming from globalisation itself, and the increase of the share in the global economy coming from very low unit labour cost economy, that this is perhaps gradually diminishing.

on your first point i have not studied the accord that you mention.

i did not mention base-line scenario in the introductory statement, and i will only say that we will, of course, have the staff projections next month.

i mentioned additional increases in prices -- i am not mentioning past increases that have already been decided and fully incorporated in our own projections, but rather the possible future increases in administrative prices and indirect taxes -- and i mentioned the traditional -- in this press conference -- second-round effects, in particular wages and salaries increases.

well, let me first just point out that i never mentioned deflation.

as regards your question on the tax cuts: we are transmitting our message on fiscal policy very clearly to all countries of the euro area without exception, including, of course, the particular country that you mentioned -- which, by the way, is not necessarily in the worst situation as regards the figures.

we have forgotten that we have had very difficult episodes, not to mention the asian crisis, which was also very dramatic.

i wo n't mention any particular instrument.

i would not say that no other figures were mentioned.

i did n't see this poll and i am a little bit surprised by the figures you are mentioning but i accept it fully.

on the collateral, let me only say that the press communiqué you will receive in few minutes makes clear that" no changes will be made to the current haircut schedule foreseen for central government debt instruments that are rated in the above-mentioned range '', namely bbb range that i have mentioned.

we are experiencing a protracted period of high inflation, because of a number of factors which are not under our own control and, amongst those factors i would mention not only oil, commodity and food prices, but also a number of decisions that have been taken by the governments, and also by the parliaments, in a number of countries.

so, i do not see any tendency towards creating a supranational supervisory body, nor a body encompassing all the financial activities you mentioned in the sphere of security settlement, banking and insurance.

we have not mentioned" accommodative ''.

as you know, we did not mention that in our proposal, and i do not think it would be opportune.

on the second point, my own observation is that the market sees what has been done by governments and what is new and was not incorporated in the previous reaction of some market participants, but was carried out by the european executive branches as mentioned in the previous question.

the fact that we have not mentioned" heightened alertness '' or" strong vigilance '' does n't mean anything.

we are not pre-committed and i mentioned our strong vigilance.

i would not ask you to remind me of the interest rates before the euro in the country that you have been mentioning, and what the interest rate would be in that country if there was not an institution here -- namely the ecb - which is credible in the eyes of europe and the rest of the world.

i also said that we had increased vigilance and, as you noted, i not only said that our vigilance had increased, but i mentioned it three times.

there are, of course, other factors which i did not mention, i.e. the war in kosovo, which certainly also has a somewhat different impact on the euro than on the us dollar.

i do not want to mention any particular economy in europe, but it is obvious that some economies are behaving very properly.

as regards your first question, i did not mention ireland in the introductory statement.

i do not want to cite any particular country, but i will say one thing in the case of one country which i have already mentioned as creating a problem.

i have already said that several times, so i take it that there is no point in mentioning anything else.

so, again, i would not express anything on any particular country but i would say -- as it was mentioned by ecofin -- that we must have stable figures which are not dependent on electoral or political cycles.

as regards the second question, the ecb is not even mentioned in the stability and growth pact, but we do play a role, i admit, and i take great comfort in that at the summit in seville the heads of state or government solemnly declared that they would adhere to the goals set.

by implication, that means that i do not fear that the performance of the specific countries you mentioned would have a negative contagious effect.

but we are inclined to think that it will not be as low as the 1.3% mentioned earlier.

there is one big difference between the first and the second ltro, which i do n't think i have mentioned.

also, one can not deny that monetary policy can not do everything -- governments have to do their bit in terms of undertaking complete fiscal consolidation and implementing structural reforms and, as i mentioned in the introductory statement, the banks have to improve the resilience of their balance sheets, because that is essential for credit and for lending.

second, i have no indication that would change my trust in the fact that the federal reserve chairman and the secretary of the treasury, not to mention the president of the united states, are not playing the strategy or tactics of a weak dollar.

not to mention, of course, that at the time an overwhelming majority of executive branches thought it useful to say that we should not do that.

i do not want to qualify the situation in other parts of the world, but it also seems to be reasonably true for other major economies in the world, notably for the sister economy i have mentioned.

i have no response other than what has been indicated by the various projections that we have available -- not only the staff projections, which are published immediately after our meeting today, but i have mentioned the figures, and you can draw your own conclusions from those.

i said that we undoubtedly had excess liquidity -- i do not want to paraphrase, or to read what i said again, but we really have to look carefully at m3 growth which remains resilient, as you have mentioned.

and we look not only at that, but at all other information, in particular the information that you have been mentioning.

this does not, of course, change the order of magnitude of the most important counterparts that i had mentioned -- credit to the economy and in particular credit to the private sector, which is extraordinarily dynamic.

on the first question, i am not sure that the figure that you mention is the appropriate figure if it refers to growth this year.

and i draw your attention to the fact that in any case when we produce a g7 communiqué, because you mentioned g7, it is signed by ministers and central bank governors.

there is nothing particular that i have to mention on this now though.

so there is nothing new or special that i could mention in this respect.

i 'm not sure i mentioned that.

i do n't want to go back to the figures i gave you, but those who say that the euro is working against job creation are not justified, when you look at the figures i have mentioned.

at this stage, i have to say that the ecb has never called for new administrative codes and regulations, but we are certainly calling for very active work in the various areas that i have mentioned, including the work to be done by the industry itself on a purely voluntary basis.

that is important not only because the contribution to growth is important, but because it is a way of coping with what i mentioned as one of our emerging problems, namely the level of capacity utilisation.

of course, there are people who -- one or two council members observed that we have to think in perspective to the link between the asset purchase programme and the inflation convergence, so there were some few -- two, actually, if i remember, two, i guess -- observations of this nature, but there was n't any discussion like that on normalisation, as you mentioned.

for a long period of time, namely a year and a half, i have myself signed communiqués on various occasions, particularly communiqués of the g7, where we clearly signalled that the international community thought that it would be appropriate and advisable for a number of currencies belonging to the" emerging world '', and in particular" emerging asia '' -- and i do not want to mention only one currency, because it was a message which related to a number of currencies -- to move up and progressively take better account of the overall economic and monetary situation.

on the smp, i have never mentioned on behalf of the governing council limits of the programme and so i will not do so now either.

{'predict (9)', 'comment (450)'}

as regards your second question, i will not comment in any respect on what the market is predicting at a certain distance from now.

{'predict (9)', 'discuss (250)'}

it will undoubtedly be discussed at one of the forthcoming meetings, but what the result of that discussion will be, i can not predict.

{'predict (9)'}

so we are not in a position to predict precisely when we will reach the magic 2%.

i have been invited by jean-claude juncker to participate in the eurogroup meeting and i do not want to predict what will be said there.

but i am not a prophet and i can not predict precisely when.

and i am not sure that it is exactly appropriate in the present period: first of all we have a number of other indicators that are also supposed to predict future episodes in the cycle and they are not at all giving the same indications.

again, before the euro was set up nobody was predicting that we would be as credible as the most credible central banks.

incidentally, we have not seen any of the awful, terrible risks that were predicted at the time.

i do n't want to predict what is likely or not likely to be decided tomorrow by the european commission.

{'react (17)', 'answer (132)'}

but the way to react to this is not to count on external help that could alleviate the temporary market pressures, instead the real answer is actually to count on the countries ' capacity to reform themselves with the right economic policies -- and i listed them before, in response to a previous question.

and the answer is, to the extent and only to the extent that -- we do n't react to political uncertainty by itself, but we certainly internalise the information that comes from the fact that political uncertainty may affect our medium-term outlook for price stability.

{'react (17)', 'remark (24)'}

i am not reacting to anybody 's remarks in this area and you will have noted that the word" exchange rate '' did not appear in today 's statement.

{'react (17)'}

well, i am not sure, because the money market term structure has reacted very well.

what we have seen in the past few cases of elections outcomes does n't suggest that markets reacted in a way that would undermine confidence.

we are not reacting to other central banks ' monetary policy decisions.

of course, people who live in institutions like ours would like to see everything happening very fast, but often the speed that non-elected institutions have in mind is not the same as the actual political speed in different countries, which does n't mean that we should n't continue to urge them to react.

it is not that we react to other central banks ' communications ; we simply react to what we see as the changes in our medium term outlook.

we do not mechanistically react to an exchange rate evolution, as we do not mechanistically react to a fiscal position evolution or to any other evolution, such as oil prices and so forth.

we can not sit back and let these risks go by without reacting.

we can not react on a day-to-day basis, and we have exactly the same posture of vigilance that we had before.

well, the decision taken on 17 september 2001 certainly does not bear witness to your claim that we are slow in reacting and resistant to change.

so, we are not reacting mechanistically, we are looking at the second-round effects.

they can trust that we will do what we have to do and not react to, i would say, erratic inputs.

{'remark (24)'}

to your first question: any indications that could be given in respect of a possible weakening of the fiscal consolidation would be against, i repeat, against the decisions that have been taken by the various governments themselves, against the recommendations and decisions that have been taken within the framework of the stability and growth pact upon the proposal of the commission and against the berlin agreement i referred to in the introductory remarks.

over and beyond this i would say that we will do all that is necessary to ensure price stability and be credible in delivering price stability, in order to remain fully in line with the solid anchoring of inflationary expectations, as i have underlined twice in my introductory remarks.

then i have to say that it is not the final decision, as we have said very clearly today that we will incorporate all remarks which are made before we take our decision to launch, which will be taken at the beginning of next year.

i have said that the hump will be incorporated in our forecast, i would be very surprised if it were not the case, but i do not want to embark on any other remark at this stage.

i know that none of us will start departing from the introductory remarks.

i have no remark other than to say that what is very important in our domain is qualification.

but, in a system of floating exchange rates, we have no other particular remarks to make on exchange rates on top of what i just said.

i have nothing to add to the introductory remarks.

as regards your first question i would only say, as i have already said, that not all of our introductory remarks are alike.

i do not depart from that remark.

i am obviously aware that markets read and understand and try to interpret any remark made by the president of the ecb in these press conferences.

so there was not one word of these remarks that surprised my colleagues.

and clearly, what we have to do now -- and this is not a remark just for europe, but for all the advanced economies of the entire world -- is to preserve, reinforce and consolidate the authority of the public authorities.

{'respond (38)', 'answer (132)'}

i responded to that question on one particular country but i do n't want to embark now on a series of questions and answers about individual countries.

{'respond (38)', 'comment (450)'}

i will not comment on italy ; i got a call and i responded.

i have already responded to the third question so i will not comment further.

as for the first question, i have already responded to it and i have no further comments to make.

{'respond (38)', 'consider (94)'}

there is no other central bank, we are the only one -- i draw your attention to that -- which immediately after having considered the situation, and under the observation of the full body of european and global observers and journalists, produces its own assessment of the situation and asks the vice-president and the president to appear in front of you and to respond as candidly as possible to the questions on the decision which has just been taken.

{'respond (38)', 'discuss (250)'}

this is not to say that i will not respond to your question ; i only note that we did not discuss it this morning.

on the first issue, it is very difficult for me to respond because the labour market reform is now being discussed in the parliament.

i responded ; we did n't discuss cutting the link.

clearly, the insurance companies try to respond to this situation in a variety of ways, which i do n't want to discuss, because some of them have to do with their business models, but certainly it 's quite clear that certain regulatory provisions make their task of diversifying their investments into higher yield and potentially more liquid investments more difficult.

{'respond (38)', 'elaborate (58)'}

as regards vigilance, i already responded clearly and i will not elaborate more on that.

{'respond (38)', 'examine (18)'}

if i may respond to the second question, by saying that we have n't yet examined completely the details of this.

{'respond (38)'}

germany is now growing much more actively, which is a good thing, and i am happy that i no longer have to respond to the usual questions i faced during the first few years of my mandate about germany being the sick man of the euro area !

as you can imagine, i can not respond to the first question.

i think one should not respond to such questions in general, because there are very important differences among market-places and among economies.

we do not view now movements in interest rates as a realistic way to respond to risks in financial stability that we do not see.

you know that i never respond to the question" how do you balance the risk for inflation on the one hand and the risk for growth on the other hand? ''

first of all, because some of this is going to be retained, not available for sale, but also for the opposite reason because these markets are bound to respond positively in size to our actions.

in our case, we 've never been disappointed by the timeliness with which the staff and committees have responded.

no, at this stage, i can not refer to analytic work that would respond to your question.

i remain very prudent and cautious and i will not respond to the question on the average of next year.

i respond to the question because you asked a very specific question, but i can not embark on responding to questions on particular countries.

i am not responding on greece, as your question was not on greece but on all countries.

the reason for this is not only that they had decided earlier that we should deliver price stability -- let 's not forget, we have a mandate given by the exemplary democracies of the eu 27 -- but also because the period is such that they are calling even more insistently on us, and we will respond to this frank request of our fellow citizens.

the events that we are dealing with are difficult and challenging, and they require that all authorities respond in a manner which is consistent with the scale of the challenge.

as regards your last question i ca n't respond immediately.

i will not respond to this question.

i would say that there is an ongoing meditation, not only at the level of the governing council, but also at the level of the staff of the eurosystem, to see exactly what the situation is and to respond to a situation which is also objectively moving.

i think experience actually teaches only up to a point, because it is very difficult to respond to these questions.

on long-term interest rates, i do not want to pronounce myself on the united states, and the person best qualified to respond to your question as regards the other side of the atlantic is ben bernanke.

as to the first question, i think governments have responded and i think it is exaggerated also to say that governments can not respond.

first of all, i have to go back to mr atkins because i did not respond to part of his question, if you permit.

so it 's very difficult to respond to your question whether we have in mind a level of the exchange rate.

when bulgaria has entered the european union, then the first question which will perhaps be asked of the ecb will be whether or not it is opportune to enter the exchange rate mechanism, and i can not respond in advance, so i can only confirm what i said.

today i have said a number of things and i do not want to repeat the five points that i made in responding to one of the first questions.

{'speculate (35)', 'answer (132)'}

first of all, i have not seen that letter, so i can not speculate on what i would answer had i seen it.

i can not answer the last question because i do not speculate on what the" appropriate level '' is for the euro in a world that is ever-changing.

{'speculate (35)'}

yes, but i would n't speculate on any kind of shocks.

i would not speculate on a more rapid development of whichever exchange rate, as you can understand.

i am not, however, going to speculate about what would happen should this situation develop further.

i do not think it is useful to speculate about break ups or such things.

and i am not inclined to speculate on the impact.

i do n't want to speculate what are the conditions whereby countries would not receive the assistance of the ecb.

now, on the other point, i do n't want to speculate.

we do not speculate on future changes in interest rates.

as i have said, this is a fully effective backstop removing tail risk for europe, and i would not want to speculate on other measures for the time being at least.

so i will not speculate about what we would do if there really were a recession.

i am not going to speculate about a potential recession if we do not see one coming.

i will not speculate further.

well, first of all, we are not joining investment banks in speculating on what either stock prices or interest rates will be doing in the near future.

well, we do not stick to rules like the" taylor rule '', so i prefer not to speculate.

and then i -- and i should say we -- can not and did not want to speculate on how the events will evolve once a war breaks out.

we do not and we did not speculate, theorise or analyse about the size of any change that was not contemplated.

i can not speculate on what will happen after the war, if and when the war is over.

i will not speculate on that.

and i prefer, also in this respect, not to speculate about any likely consequence or any likely reaction to what we know or what we do n't know is going to happen.

i would not speculate on future developments which i hope will not take place.

we have not come to a decision on that, so that i will not speculate.

again, i do n't want to speculate on this.

i do n't want to speculate on the likelihood of these events.

on the rest, i do n't want to speculate really.

now, it 's very difficult to distinguish between these three sets of factors, sets of conditions, so we wo n't speculate exactly on what explanation is the most likely.

i just do n't want to speculate, giving horizons of dates, of deadlines.

it depends on many parameters, and at this point, certainly we would n't want to speculate on precise deadlines.

i do not want to speculate again about the possibility that inflation on average might turn out higher than 2%.

well, let me say what i say ever more often: as a central banker, the one thing i have learnt is not to speculate on anything, but rather to fight speculation wherever i can.

as to whenever and wherever and how we are going to use it, i will not speculate.

{'talk (39)', 'answer (132)'}

in answer to the first question, i did not talk about intervention today.

{'talk (39)', 'expect (82)'}

of course, what we are talking about is quite recent, so we do not expect to see immediate or significant changes in our own figures.

{'talk (39)', 'explain (34)'}

we are not talking about huge differences: the reasons that i gave you before explain the greatest part, but not 100%, of the difference with the previous month.

{'talk (39)'}

that is the other dimension we have not talked about.

we are not talking about a monetary base which is rapidly disappearing or shrinking to an extremely low value.

the question was about what you asked, and i said," we have n't really thought or talked about it.

now here we are facing a completely different set-up where we are not talking about individual banks, but we are talking about countries ; banking systems.

no matter who you talk to, there are, i would say, questions about the implementation, will and capacity.

i do not talk about currencies in terms of yo-yos.

i would, by the way, disagree that the other two programmes have not worked in such a kind of decisive way, but let me talk about the present programme.

so, all in all, we are talking about a process - i do not want to give the idea that we have a precise figure in mind - but we are talking about a process which, to my mind, will take at least a decade to be fully completed.

so, even though the ecb is depicted as the institution that is actually keeping rates low, we are not talking about the same rates.

there were a few who were not very inclined to do something about the rate - but here i talk about a very few - and a very large majority was inclined to do something and supported the proposal as we put it before the council.

i 'm not talking about the 30s.

one is the long-term greater health of the banking system -- when i say long-term, i am not talking about years, but about the end of this year, when the aqr will have been completed.

i have also learnt never to talk again about intervention until after the event.

i have not had chance to talk to the president of the eurogroup, but i am absolutely sure that he has been misunderstood.

i personally happen to think that in europe we will see more definite signs already in the first half of this year, maybe towards the end of the first half of this year, but in any other respect, we have not changed our assessment for a gradual recovery which might take -- and now i am talking for europe only -- the growth rate in the last part of this year up to the potential growth rate at an annualised rate.

and i do not know what will happen in the forthcoming days, i am not talking in terms of a compromise, but if there are ways to extract certain definitive and well-defined commitments from the governments concerned, that might replace the early warning.

about the exchange rate, i do n't know how much it 's trading but we 're talking about the $ 1.18.

i would only say and confirm that there is a consensus in the g7 communiqué to signal that some currencies -- not the particular currency that we are talking about here, i.e. the chinese currency, but a number of currencies in asia -- could certainly be allowed to appreciate, to some extent, by market forces, in a progressive, orderly and smooth fashion, which is not the case today.

no, we look at it, but we are not talking about it in terms of concern or worry at this stage.

one can not really talk about a ` bargain ' as i 've read in some parts, a ` grand bargain '.

but we are not talking about deep existential differences.

no, i 'm not going to talk to leaders to ask for reassurances about what they plan to do.

yes, as the president said, negative rates have been in place for quite some time and we see a situation where no one can talk about, say, asset price bubbles in the euro area.

we have n't really thought or talked about helicopter money.

we were n't happy when we were talking about an increase of 15% and, as i said, we knew that could not be sustained.

on your first question on the stress tests, i do not know whether, implicitly, the banks that are talking to you are suggesting that the stress tests should be much tougher -- not only to stress test the risks that have already been identified, but all the very many risks that have not been identified.

from that you can infer that we have not changed our baseline scenario and that our forecasts are still the same as they were when we talked to each other one month ago.

comparisons by country are actually appropriate up to a point, i am not talking about the 430 small german banks -- incidentally i would love to review the places, the towns and villages where these banks are, but i can not do it because often they would probably be the only bank in town and so they could be recognised.

but would this mean that we do n't talk to our colleagues?

they in any case relate to the whole euro area, so i 'm not talking about large figures.

no, as far as the second question is concerned, we 're really talking about nuances.

that is one thing that is meant, and it is not simply keynesian-type taxation measures that i am talking about.

{'tell (77)', 'answer (132)'}

on voting i never answer questions, with the exception of on the voting modalities where we had to be unanimous, and i told you we were and are unanimous.

{'tell (77)', 'consider (94)'}

at the same time i told you that we will not fall into what we consider to be a possible liquidity trap, which is something that we would deem dangerous for our own economy, taking into account our own circumstances, and that we also have other means, other ways, if necessary, of embarking on" non-standard action ''.

so, it was not in the introductory statement, as we had considered that it was better for me to tell you directly, on the occasion of the press conference, what the position of the governing council was.

the biggest advance that we made in the early 1990s was basically to tell banks that they could do both, so the issue was not even considered at that time.

{'tell (77)'}

we do not tell banks what is to be done, what is to be increased or what lending figures they should have.

we have all always said that we would not tell governments what to do when it comes to the omt.

but the precise modalities for the eligibility of these bonds has not been decided yet, so that i am not able to tell you whether this would be acceptable or not.

i can not tell you in substance.

we have had absolutely no involvement in any other cases in which the ecb has itself negotiated the recovery programme, made a judgement on the recovery programme, and told the heads of state or government that they themselves had to invest in the form of bilateral loans.

well, mr. noyer has participated in the discussion about italy, and i am sure that he will not tell you anything about their discussion, despite the leaks that have come out of brussels.

if i could, i would not tell you.

if sales did take place, they should not change what we have told the market with our own gold agreement.

and i would also tell the european households who are hesitating -- and a number of them are reluctant to consume because they fear future possible price instability -- i would tell them" no, we are here to ensure that you have price stability and you have your purchasing power protected.

on you last question, no, i am not ready to tell you.

and we had said" no, we will not tell you that we will not move in the months to come because we are alert and we will do whatever is necessary to cope with risks and threats to price stability ''.

in any case, when we meet after the next monetary policy meeting, i will tell you what has been decided for the non-standard measures.

we can not both tell the banks that in the past they took very abnormal risks, exhibited abnormal behaviour and so forth, and then tell them now to forget about their risk appreciation and their judgement.

so i have nothing to tell you, except to refer to what i have said on previous occasions when i have been asked this question.

and if we had reached that stage i am not sure whether i would tell you.

if there were different opinions in the council, i would not tell you about it.

you will not be surprised when i tell you that the meeting today was a meeting at which we have come to our judgement, as always, on the basis of a very thorough examination of all arguments, looking in all directions, but we were unanimous in coming to the decision we took today.

so i can not tell you anything about the speed, or the scope, with which the snail is creeping or moving.

well, it did n't really come as a surprise because, as i told you a moment ago, this data is mostly due to the changes in the price of energy.

and again, i do n't want to tell you how disappointed we were by the attitude of governments in 2004 and 2005 and the extent to which we expressed our grave concern at the time and the extent to which we have been vindicated in our judgement at the time by what has happened since then.

if i had expectations, i would n't tell you.

and that we should not do something because we are told to do the contrary.

the general feeling in europe, taking into account public opinion, is that we have to take our decision in full independence, meaning that we should not do something because we are told to do something.

i have nothing particular to tell them and no particular advice to give them, but i am sure that they are doing what is appropriate.

i do not want to tell you anything other than the fact that we are pragmatic and we will look at facts and figures.

that being said we are not pre-committed in any respect: we will do whatever is necessary to take into account the situation as it will unfold progressively and to take into account the fact that, in any case, we have to be -- my colleagues and myself in the governing council -- able, at any time, to continue to tell our fellow citizens:" you can have confidence ; we will deliver price stability in the medium term ''.

i am not telling you anything that would be interpreted as suggesting we are preparing a rate cut.

they are not telling us that we should not be vigilant on inflation.

but it was not that easy at the time, i can tell you from my personal experience.

at the present moment, no, i can not tell you that in our judgement we have to revise the growth potential for the euro area upwards.

it 's not so, it does n't affect the neutrality of the purchases -- and i 'll tell you the reasons why you observe these deviations.

i would not say that we are satisfied by all the decisions that have been taken, either by price-setters in europe or by social partners, but we are solemnly telling them that they can count on us to guarantee price stability in the medium term, to deliver price stability in the medium term and to solidly anchor inflation expectations.

if we were, i would n't tell you.

i can not tell you about everything mr. fabius said.

i can not tell you anything about the conversations i had with my us colleagues when i met them last weekend in basel.

when we will judge that monetary policy is not accommodative, we will tell you.

if we had, i would not tell you, like one of the out-countries has done.

second, as regards the banking conference in frankfurt which took place approximately a fortnight ago, i did not stand up, i was there at the banking conference, i had been invited, i was on the spot, and the chairman of the panel, mr walter, asked me" could you tell us, sir, what we need to know and to understand on interest rates and the monetary policy of the ecb ''.

i wo n't tell you the name of the newspaper that wrote this, but i think they know who they are.

the main reason why i do n't want to tell you whether there was a vote today, is that if i tell you today then i would have to tell you every two weeks.

i have a clear memory that the imf said" you should not do that '', and the oecd said" you should not do that '', and i do not have many memories of editorialists, either the major international media or the national media, telling us" you should do that ''.

i think this reproach, if any, comes a little late, because i remember that when we increased rates in december 2005, most of the economists were telling us that we should not, that their economic analysis strongly recommended not doing so.

i can not tell you what we will do.

i said i am sorry if i do n't know the exact time, but i can tell you it will be around the second half of this year.

and i am not going to tell you this now.

whether this will be combined with other measures or not, i am not in a position to tell you now.

i 'm not going to tell you what we will do next month or in two months ' time, or in six months exactly, but i will say that all the groundwork for venturing into negative territory for the interest rate on the deposit facility has been done.

i do n't see why i should tell you right now what i will tell our japanese friends, our us friends, our uk friends and our canadian friends when we meet in essen.

as regards your second question, i will certainly not tell you in advance because i am absolutely incapable of telling you in advance what our staff will produce as regards projections.

and you would certainly not want me to tell you what to write.

and i should not have to tell you again how attached we were to the idea of implementing the stability and growth pact strictly, fighting -- as we did in 2004 and 2005 -- for the pact to be preserved, and not to be weakened.

on the latter issue, i can not tell you anything.

{'touch (8)', 'answer (132)'}

my answer to your first question is no, meaning that we had a brief discussion which was not in any great depth and did not touch on any technical aspect of this possible measure.

{'touch (8)', 'discuss (250)'}

on the first point, we did n't actually discuss this, not this time, but on other occasions we briefly touched upon it.

{'touch (8)'}

we have n't really touched on the issue at all.

that does not mean that we are not in touch permanently and certainly that we are not in touch in the constituency of central bankers.

and i have nothing else to say after having checked with our own people here and being in touch with our friends -- my close friends mervyn in europe and also alan on the other side of the atlantic.

i can say that since then there has n't been one aspect of the banking business that has not been touched by the regulators and the supervisors.