Nice-Première: This Thursday, the examination of the preliminary bill for the GDF-Suez merger opens at the National Assembly. Are you in favor of this merger and why?
Muriel Marland Militello: I am in favor of the project. Unity is strength, and this union between GDF and SUEZ will create a real energy pole. A large French group will be formed. Without being nationalistic, I find it very good for France. This merger will enable the group to be more efficient. When two companies come together, it ensures reduced operating costs and also allows for a common strategy and direction. They centralize their objective. This dynamic company will create jobs and thus be stronger against international competition.
NP: It must be admitted that this bill is quite complex for all citizens to understand. It is difficult to know concretely what might change for them with the passage of this bill. Can you summarize it quickly and educationally?
M-M-M: To an employee of the company, I would say that with the merger of GDF and Suez, they will benefit from the same social protection, be covered by the same labor code, and have the same guarantees. They know the rules and remain with the same ones that, in France, protect employees well.
To a citizen, I would say that privatization does not mean prices will increase. I would give the example of Air France, which was privatized and whose prices decreased. Prices do not depend on public or private ownership but on the company’s competitiveness. The State retains a significant share of the Group’s capital with considerable influence.
NP: With 140,000 amendments submitted, a record of the Fifth Republic, the debate promises to be long. Do you have any idea of its duration?
M-M-M: If we had to consider and discuss all the amendments, it would take ten years. I’ve read a hundred of them. They do not differ from each other. They vary by a comma or a word. It should also be said that discussions come at a cost for taxpayers. I think perhaps fifty amendments may have meaning. We will show the French the futility of most of the 140,000 amendments. One certainty: we will not discuss for ten years. The French should not be the victims of an irresponsible Left that prefers political posturing over the problems of our fellow citizens.
NP: Brussels and the European Commission will have their say and might change the rules of the gas market. How do you analyze this, and are you concerned that your vote in the Assembly might be “useless” by slightly exaggerating?
M-M-M: There is no need to worry. Brussels and the European Commission are aware of the provisions of this merger.
NP: What would you like to say to all those who oppose this privatization?
M-M-M: I would ask them to look at other privatizations and say they are responsible for an important area: Energy. It is easy to oppose changes. It takes courage to propose for progress. It is easy not to move to avoid taking risks. Risks must be taken to avoid stagnation. In the GDF-Suez file, inaction would lead us nowhere.
NP: We remember the heated debate over the CPE, the demonstrations, the 49.3 used by Dominique de Villepin. We sensed some wavering in your ranks, and divergences came to light. What is the mindset of the majority deputies just before the opening of this extraordinary session and the threats of social conflicts posed by the left and the unions?
M-M-M: I can assure you that UMP deputies are in great shape. I was in Marseille for the Summer Universities with the youth of the UMP around Nicolas Sarkozy. The French are waiting for this change. It takes courage in politics. Threats will not prevent us from acting. Look at the United States: they acted, and their purchasing power increased by more than 30%. When you’re convinced, you follow through on your convictions.
The unions are always sawing off the branch they are sitting on. Many people are for this merger. And even on the left. They were, and now they are not anymore… The UMP parliamentarians support the Government and the President of our Movement, Nicolas Sarkozy.
NP: Would you still have been in favor of the merger if the State had completely withdrawn?
M-M-M: Yes. In a public company, the State makes up the deficit, and it costs a fortune. Knowing that the State will absorb the debt anyway does not encourage business leaders to cover deficits themselves. These debts ultimately impact taxes.
A private company is responsible for its own funds. It pays attention to them. You know, economy is a profession. Political action is another. Politicians only provide economic orientations. Chambers of commerce are not managed by the Ministry of Finance, and that’s very good. What would you think if that were the case?
NP: Finally, out of curiosity about your work as a deputy, when it is announced that such a bill will be examined, what is your first thought?
a) We will have to study all this closely because it is very complicated.
b) It will be a source of social conflicts.
c) It has to be done because it’s important.
d) It will be necessary to show solidarity within the majority.
e) Others…
M-M-M: The answer c. It has to be done because it’s important. I would like to mention answer a. A deputy is not a specialist. But one must understand the stakes of the issue. We ask three questions: Is it good for France, is it good for the French, is it good for the company?
When we receive a government note on the bill, I discuss it with an opposition deputy to understand what poses a problem. I also study examples. In this case, I look closely at previous privatizations and also analyze similar examples in other countries.
