by Jerome a Paris
Wed Apr 26th, 2006 at 05:40:36 AM EST
It's amazing how little has been said about European "protectionism" in recent days - the word has literally disappeared form the papers, after being on the front page of all of them on a daily basis. It has been replaced by the war of words with Gazprom. But Gazprom is not afraid of talking tough in return to set the record straight, and they have exposed Blair's hypocrisy on the Centrica story (with the Blair government shown to actually be protectionist, as opposed to others which are accused on pretty flimsy grounds).
Blair is not a happy camper, and is trying to regain the initiative on this ground:
Blair rules out blocking Gazprom bid for Centrica
Tony Blair has ruled out any possibility that UK ministers might actively seek to block a future bid by Russia’s Gazprom for Centrica, the gas supplier.
The prime minister believes that Britain must stick firmly by its commitment to liberalise European markets.
In recent months, Department of Trade and Industry officials have responded to Gazprom’s expression of interest in Centrica by examining whether ministers could legislate to block a bid in order to protect the security of UK energy supplies.
However, Mr Blair has told allies he does not wish to go down this route and that any Gazprom bid for Centrica can be dealt with satisfactorily by the UK’s independent competition authorities.
Mr Blair thinks Britain must face down the wave of “economic patriotism” shown by some EU states, such as France. He is also beginning to work with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, to flesh out a new drive on European economic reform when Germany takes over the EU presidency next January.
Lots of hot air there, it's worth deconstructing (below the fold). Bottom line: Blair claims not to be protectionist while still being so, but hiding it, and wants the debate to switch back to French protectionism. But why on earth would the FT want to be complicit?
Tony Blair has ruled out any possibility that UK ministers might actively seek to block a future bid by Russia’s Gazprom for Centrica, the gas supplier.
The prime minister believes that Britain must stick firmly by its commitment to liberalise European markets.
The first paragraph brings the most visible information, and it sounds like Blair is indeed sticking to principles and commitments, and will let market forces rule.
But note a important distinction: he only commits to "ministers" not "actively" blocking a deal. So others can still block it, and even ministers can still "passively" block it (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
So the headline, again, is very misleading. It really should say "Blair rules out explicitly blocking Gazprom bid for Centrica"
In recent months, Department of Trade and Industry officials have responded to Gazprom’s expression of interest in Centrica by examining whether ministers could legislate to block a bid in order to protect the security of UK energy supplies.
Note how this tries to distance the government from the "examination" process: it's only DTI officials, i.e. unelected bureaucrats, that tried to block the merger.
This goes against the very information printed by the FT, which stated that the industry minister, Alan Johnson, (as well as others) was directly involved.
Gazprom prompted rethink on UK merger rules (FT, 16 April)
The UK considered changing its merger control regime this year to block a potential takeover of Centrica, the UK’s biggest gas supplier, by Gazprom of Russia, a move that remains an option to thwart any bid that threatens energy security.
Alan Johnson, the trade and industry secretary who has been a vocal critic of protectionism in the US and Europe, was briefed with other ministers in February on the legal changes required to allow them to block a rumoured bid by Gazprom for Centrica, the Financial Times has learnt.
(...)
However, the prospect of the state-run Russian gas company taking over the UK’s biggest energy supplier prompted frantic activity within the trade and industry department.
Over eight meetings, officials advised ministers on the “impact of the proposed takeovers on the British energy sector”, according to information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
"frantic activity" "eight meetings with several ministers" "the UK considered changing merger rules" - that doesn't really sound like a few lowly bureaucrats working on their own on this file, does it?
However, Mr Blair has told allies he does not wish to go down this route and that any Gazprom bid for Centrica can be dealt with satisfactorily by the UK’s independent competition authorities.
Again, the statement of high principles, and the apparent deference to market rules and "independent" authorities...
Again:
Ministers rattled by Gazprom's advances (FT, 16 April)
The government may hope the simple fact it would consider such a measure [changing the law on takeovers] will be sufficient to deter Gazprom from making a move. Chris Bright, a competition lawyer on the Competition Commission's utilities panel, said: "Sometimes you just need to rattle a few sabres. It seems to work for the French."
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Mr Blair thinks Britain must face down the wave of “economic patriotism” shown by some EU states, such as France.
Yes, let's switch the debate to where it "should" be after this unwelcome distraction.
My question to the FT is as follows: why are you doing Blair's bidding? When you did your job (unearthing the information about the DTI's "frantic activity" against Gazprom), you proved that the permanent noise about "protectionism" was just that, noise - and that noise disappeared for some time, out of embarrasment, maybe - proof that it was not linked to facts but just to selective discourse by people that seem to have easy access to your columns.
I am sure that you were quoted a lot more for the genuine information you provided that day than for all the free PR you did for Blair over days and weeks - because all the other papers printed the exact same mindless drivel at the same time.
Your job as a quality paper is to cut through all that "pushed" information, and provide context and facts across the politicians' assertions.
Today's piece does not pass that threshhold, I'm afraid.
