The most important decisions are not necessarily those it is much taught about, like tax, working legislation or professional training. There are some tangible choices which can prove themselves decisive for the future of a country. Regarding that point, the continuous stigmatization in France of all what has been down during the last three decades does not represent reality. The construction of an infrastructure network makes many countries envious. Our nuclear program has contributed to our energy independence and to the reduction of our emissions of carbon dioxide. The end of prices and foreign exchanges controls and of credit management by the state has permitted our enterprises to go out from a bureaucratic model which was unsuitable to the world which was emerging. If previous governments made only mistakes, would France still be the 5th economic power? Of course not. Everything has not been perfect and the failure to cope with unemployment during the last ten years testifies of that. But in darkening the situation, essential is missed, which frequently relies on tangible choices which carry major consequences.
Prime minister was right to intervene in the Saint-Nazaire shipyard case. Against what has been said, it is not a nationalization. This word means the appropriation, by a state, without prejudice of a fair and preceding compensation, of an asset belonging to a private entity. In that case, the state did nothing else than using its preemption right as any shareholder may do it when it has been decided when it becomes shareholder. The Korean group STX, which is in trouble, wanted to sale its participation. The government, to protect its interests as those of the company did its duty, even if it means it later looks for a reliable industrial partner. It is not obviously the case with Fincantieri. The point, risen by the Italian government, which pretends to be humiliated by the fact that France did accept a Korean shareholder and is opposed the proposed takeover, is fallacious. STX was not a direct competitor of the French shipyard, on the opposite to Fincantieri. But to understand what is at stake, it is necessary to look back at what happened in the past. About 30 years ago, France restructured its shipbuilding industry which was in a deep crisis caused by the competition coming from Asian shipyards. Dunkirk, La Seyne and Dubigeon, near Nantes, were closed. La Ciotat moved into maintenance and Saint-Nazaire specialized itself in cruise vessels, an activity which was taking its expansion, despite the critics, at that time of the minister of Economic affairs. Twenty years later, its shareholder, Alstom, to cope with its financial problems, disguised its accounts in pretending that ships which had been built were sold to clients. In fact, Alstom had offered loans to the clients to finance the acquisition. When Alstom decided to sale the shipyard, the State took a shareholding along with Korean shipyard STX. The two companies were not active on the same markets and that did not block Saint-Nazaire successes, with, currently, an order books full until 2020 and achievements about which media become enthusiastic like the launch of the biggest liner in the world, the Harmony of the Seas. But who was the major competitor to get these orders from cruise companies? Fincantieri. Who can believe that if the Italian shipyard takeovers Saint-Nazaire, when the market is less dynamic, it will not give an advantage to the sites located in Italy? It is obvious. A partnership was conceivable but a takeover must be blocked because it would create a major threat on the future of a yard which employs and keeps alive thousands of employees and subcontractors.
The rejection of the financing of the Seine-North canal is also quite justified. What is the purpose of that equipment financed by France with a cost of several billion euro? To facilitate the connections with Rotterdam and Anvers harbors. And who would be the first to be hurt? The Le Havre harbor. We are complaining, years after years about the incapacity of our country to take advantage of its maritime positions and of the weakness of the infrastructures dedicated to our harbors and the State would carry the high cost of an investment which would weaken them further. Before becoming Prime minister, Edouard Philippe, in an article published in Le Monde, had denounced with many arguments that project. It is logical that, as Prime minister, he doesn’t repudiate his own opinion. He could even launch a reflection about the modernization of the containers transport network where Le Havre, whose he was the Mayor before being appointed as Prime minister, would have a special role and which will could create for goods the same revolution than the TGV did for passengers.
The Prime minister should not stop there. The next issue will be the authorization given –at last- to the building of the Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport, located north of Nantes. This area, not only thanks to the shipyard but also with the activity generated by aeronautic industries is in a solid industrial recovery. It is also a major touristic area with la Baule and the south of Morbihan. The current airport is located in the south of Nantes, which forces passengers to go round the agglomeration and make a long detour to reach, whatever they travel for professional or holiday purpose, their final destination. Local populations concerned by the project voted in favor of it, all legal aspects have been clarified and the few farmers who will be expropriated have received a proposal for their compensation. Beyond the well understood economic advantages for the province, what is also at stake is the State authority.
Another expected decision is the abandon of the incomprehensible project regarding the closure of Fessenheim two nuclear plants. It was a promise of the previous president, fortunately not kept, and it would be effective at the end of next year when Flamanville EPR nuclear reactor becomes in activity, to respect the production capacities ceiling inscribed in the 2014 law. The first unit will start again in the coming days after refueling and the second one at the beginning of next year with the authorization of the Nuclear Safety Authority which is the only body with the mandate to deliver it. To close these two units would represent a huge waste, hundreds of jobs lost and would oblige to give compensations, apart from EDF, to German and Swiss utilities which have supplying contracts with the two units. The State has certainly a better use for its resources. And if it is necessary to fulfill legal dispositions, to compensate the put in activity of new capacities, there are certainly other nuclear plants which are not in as good conditions as Fessenheim which could be closed. Costly investments would be avoided and the State would not have to pay heavy compensations and to lose power exports. It is not useless to remind that during the last years, as an average, EDF contributed each year for about 2 billion euros to the trade balance and that there are not so many sectors which do the same.
It is understandable to have the ambition to “transform” the country to cope with its weaknesses, to its persisting unemployment and to its trade deficit. But there are also exceptional decisions which have major and long term consequences on our economy. In that case, the State must not make mistakes. The first decisions of the government are going in the right direction. Let’s hope that will last.