Ilva is at the end of the line. To secure a future, we need the state to step in and put an end to the hypocrisy

For thirteen years, Ilva survived on the back of a collective delusion: that it would always be possible to buy a little more time. A decree, a commissioner, a new round of negotiations, a new investor, yet another extension. Every government has sought to avoid making a final decision, trusting that someone, sooner or later, would sort out the problem.

The ruling by the Milan Court of Appeal radically changes the situation. If the required measures are not implemented within ninety days, the closure of the plant is no longer merely a threat periodically raised in public debate. It becomes a real possibility.

This is a step that also carries symbolic significance. It serves as a reminder of a principle that is all too often forgotten: national strategic interests do not override the rule of law. The declaration that the plant is of strategic interest does not constitute a special licence to operate in breach of environmental regulations. The State may recognise that the steel industry is an essential sector, but it cannot turn this necessity into a permanent exemption from the regulations designed to protect health and the environment.

This also completely changes the market.

For months, the government has been seeking a buyer. There have been a succession of round-table discussions, expressions of interest and negotiations with Italian and international parties, without reaching a credible solution. Today, the prospect of a possible closure of the plant makes it even harder to imagine an investor willing to take on an industrial, environmental and legal risk of this magnitude. The more time passes, the weaker the state’s negotiating position becomes. That is why the moment of truth has arrived. Continuing to search for a buyer – and finding increasingly unlikely candidates – risks becoming a mere pretext. If Italy truly regards steel production as strategic, and if it wishes to prevent the country from increasing its dependence on Chinese steel – which is far from environmentally friendly – it must bear the cost of the transition directly, rather than hoping that a private entity will shoulder it. This means one very simple thing: funding the clean-up, making the site permanently safe and planning an industrial conversion to production using electric furnaces. It is a costly choice. But continuing to avoid making a choice has proved infinitely more costly.

There is a European precedent that should be brought into the Italian debate. The British government decided to provide financial support to Tata Steel for the conversion of the large Port Talbot plant, closing the old facility and providing the buyer with hundreds of millions of pounds in funding to facilitate the switch to electric furnaces. It had the political courage to accept the closure of traditional blast furnaces during the transition. It did not promise the impossible. It chose to manage the change rather than postpone it.

This is probably the lesson that Italy should take to heart today. It may seem paradoxical, but perhaps the best way to save Taranto is not to continue defending the plant as it stands. It is to accept that this production model has reached the end of the line and to use the power of the state not to freeze the past, but to build the future. Since 2013, Italian politicians have expended enormous amounts of energy and money to avoid the most difficult decision. The Milan ruling tells us that that era is over. Today, the real choice is not between closing down or continuing production. It is between facing a closure forced by circumstances or steering a transition that allows Italy to retain a modern, environmentally sustainable and competitive steel industry. The time for postponements is over. Will the time for decisions now arrive?