French corporations are aggressive players in the game of European cross-border acquisitions, gaining control of such British household names as Allied Domecq. Yet when French companies are themselves the targets of foreign bidders, French politicians play dirty pool. The latest and most blatant example of France’s protection of its own “strategic” markets is the shotgun marriage between Gaz de France and Suez, two of the biggest utilities in France’s quasi-monopolistic energy market. So hastily was this union arranged by Dominique de Villepin, the French Prime Minister, that the two companies had no time to agree the price. The sole purpose is to block a hostile bid for Suez by Enel, the Italian electricity giant.

France is unapologetic about the protectionist policies that it describes as “economic nationalism”. It has declared no fewer than 11 “strategic” sectors, a list that includes casinos, off limits to foreigners; new poison-pill legislation will soon make all unsoli-cited takeovers harder.

France is not the only country making inexcusable use of a loophole in the European takeover directive that allows EU governments to erect supposedly limited defences against takeovers. Had the boot been on the other foot, a French bidder would have discovered that the Italian State retains sufficient shares in Enel to fend off unwanted suitors. It took a scandal at the Bank of Italy to open the Italian banking sector to foreign bids — an opening that BNP Paribas has been one of the first to exploit. Spain, so righteous when it came to Italy’s closed banking sector, is now apeing French rhetoric about “national champions”, to block a bid by the German group E.ON for the Spanish Endesa. Spain and Luxembourg have lined up behind France to oppose the takeover of the multinational Arcelor by Mittal Steel, opposition inspired not by the quality of the bid, but the Indian nationality of the bidder.

Charlie McCreevy, the European Commissioner for the Internal Market, well understands the damage being done in the name of nationalism to Europe’s global competitiveness, its ability to attract international capital, and the interests both of consumers and of shareholders. The European market had begun to open up, with the value of cross-border deals doubling between 2004 and 2005, to £198 billion. That progress will be put at risk if predatory cartels, operating behind barriers raised against outsiders, are allowed to develop and then carve up the market between them.

As Mr McCreevy observes, there is “a direct correlation between openness and prosperity”. This protectionist backlash does no one any good — certainly not the sectors thus protected against competition. Giulio Tremonti, the Italian Minister for the Economy and one of its most forthright free-market champions, has pleaded with Brussels to act decisively before a pattern of obstruction and retaliation becomes established. Not all commissioners have the stomach for this fight. Mr McCreevy is going to need all the support he can get.