Nuclear: the energetic show of Nicolas Sarkozy to defend his policy before the commission of inquiry

Nuclear: the energetic show of Nicolas Sarkozy to defend his policy before the commission of inquiry

Nicolas Sarkozy made the show. Heard this Thursday at the National Assembly by the commission of inquiry on “the reasons for France’s loss of sovereignty and energy independence”, the former president had a field day. He first classified political leaders into two camps: “Those who destroyed the nuclear industry, and those who promoted it. »

He ranks in this second clan and is very proud to remember it. “All my political life, I have taken decisions in favor of the sector. And worse, I have always assumed them publicly, whatever the political price to pay. Today it’s easy to be for nuclear, I see some doing backflips. »

“Why only close Fessenheim? We must only save the Alsatians? »

From the start of the three-hour hearing, he denounced François Hollande, Martine Aubry, the first secretary of the PS at the time, and the mandate agreement concluded with the Greens in 2011 as “an absurd ideological choice…” He provided for the closure of 24 of the 58 French reactors, and a ceiling for nuclear power production set at 50%. “An economic cataclysm and madness,” he said, repeating his remarks made before the 2012 presidential election.

To mark the absurdity of the agreement, he even invoked François Mitterrand, “the president under whom there was the most opening of power stations”. Laughing, he criticized the political opportunism of the text. “The reversal of the ideological corpus of the socialists is the moment when they say to themselves: to win, we need an alliance with the ecologists. »

The agreement, which provided the closure of Fessenheim still arouses the ire of Nicolas Sarkozy today. “If nuclear power is dangerous, close everything, why only Fessenheim? We must only save the Alsatians? “. And to attack once again François Hollande and the Minister of the Environment Ségolène Royal “who chose to close Fessenheim” and “went into the wall honking their horns”.

For him, “nuclear power is a matter for the President of the Republic, a matter of major independence”. A subject that deserves to go against public opinion. Especially, in 2011, after the Fukushima accident. “I have been accused very often of being part of the nuclear lobby. The only lobby that exists is the anti-nuclear lobby, it is much more powerful,” he said. Tackle in passing “media benevolence” anti-nuclear during his mandate. A “smear campaign, worthy of witch hunts”.

Fukushima? “We lied to public opinion”

On the accident in Fukushima, Nicolas Sarkozy continues, still as electric. “We lied to public opinion by saying it was a nuclear accident. It’s wrong. 12,000 victims of the tidal wave. By radiation? Only one. And the former head of state reports a conversion with then German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who after Fukushima decided to close the Bavarian power plants. “Angela, what’s going on?” I’m not fine ? “But Nicolas, haven’t you seen Fukushima?” “But where does the tsunami in Bavaria come from?” “Sends him Nicolas Sarkozy.

Before the commission of inquiry, he claims it: “After Fukushima, a head of state must keep his cool” to announce “that there will be no closure in France”. A real marker according to him: “You were among the modern or the archaic, it was as stupid as that” For him, “opposing renewable energies and nuclear energy makes no sense”.

He sticks to his positions: “To fulfill our environmental objectives, we need nuclear energy. “And recalls the remarks made in 2011 by François Hollande against him:” By defending nuclear power, Nicolas Sarkozy shows that he is a man of the past because he defends an outdated economic model. And to continue, “the facts have spoken, I’m not sure that a certain model is more outdated than the other”. For the former president, “nuclear power is neither right nor left, it is the best interest of France”. Before concluding with a final tackle: “Energy is a fascinating debate, we cannot go there with only an ideological grid”.

Source link

Leave a Reply