A brilliant exercise. In the debate over economic nationalism, the concept of “European champions” has, fortunately, swept aside the concept of “national champions”. But some observers, in their liberal enthusiasm, forget the adjective “European” and retain only the idea of “effective champion”, whatever the nationality of shareholders, workers or where production is located. In this sense, the most brilliant recent exercise is Tuesday's speech from European Commissioner Joaquin Almunia in the prestigious Institute for Political Studies in Paris, the legendary “Sciences-Po”. The Commissioner came up with some sparkling phrases: “A national champion only exists in the eyes of the government contemplating it/Unilateral patriotism confines one to naivety: the national champion is only national when it suits/The responsibility of company bosses is to make it prosper and make the best of opportunities: they are duty-bound to disregard the borders and the national origins of the firm”. To whom was his wit and eloquence addressed? The list is long: “For a year in France, in Spain, in Italy, in Poland and even in Luxemburg, there have been waves of surprising statements from this or that minister arguing, in the name of mysterious higher interests of the nation, for resistance against the foreign invader. It's no longer about stopping the Moors at Poitiers, but blocking the Indians in the forges of Lorraine or the Teutons in the shadow of the power stations of Catalonia”. There it is, there is no difference between Indians and Germans: the market will decide, full stop.
A special case. Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, who, after his roles in the European Commission and the European Central Bank now leads the “Our Europe” association, is every bit as convinced as Commissioner Almunia of the benefits of the free market and some mergers or acquisitions, whatever the nationality of the companies concerned. But at the same time, he thinks energy should be a special case. If two dominant companies in one country merged to create a monopoly, only the monopoly, not the consumers, would get richer, because it would raise its prices. If on the other hand, each of the two companies joined with a company from another Member State, costs would fall and, thanks to competition, so too would prices. We would then have protests in the name of “economic nationalism”, but energy consumers, including industry, would benefit. But Mr Padoa-Schioppa rounded off his remarks with two, more general, considerations on this sector: a) “The market is not enough” because the energy question implies “security and international relations, not just industrial choices”, and because “for energy, the free market does not exist”; b) politics have, therefore, to intervene, but “European, not national”. European countries are too small: “A Member State-sized energy policy would be ridiculous”. The security of energy supply “is at the heart of any international, political and military strategy”.
Reserved to Europe. Similar considerations also marked the “conclusions” of last week's Summit, which retained a subtle shading, speaking not of a European Energy Policy, but of an “Energy Policy for Europe” but it specifically called on the Commission and Javier Solana to prepare an external relations strategy for energy. I find it difficult to understand how such a strategy could disregard the European-ness of the industrial champions who are expected to bring it about. This issue is lacking in what Mr Almunia said in Paris, which seems to grant no importance to where decision-making takes place or where centres for research and innovation are sited. I believe that for energy, the three should be located in Europe, and examinations of hostile takeover bids should take this into account not only for strategic reasons, but also because only European companies are tied by complex and binding EU regulation on management and monitoring. It is true that some standards are international and some non-member countries have rules as rigorous as the EU. But how could international pensions funds be expected to implement policies based on industrial ambitions (and not on purely financial approaches) and European strategies?
Mr Almunia and Mr Padoa-Schioppa are probably both right in part. My conclusion, then, will be Jean-Claude Juncker's, reported two days ago: “I refuse any exclusively ideological approach”.
(F.R.)