Está en la página 1de 125

This is the report of the French Senat commission and the acceptance of the

text of a law giving the French government extra-ordinary powers to pass


laws to deal with situations arising from a no-deal Brexit. The document
outlines a) the current situation b) the challenges c) what the French
government can do about it. This is followed by transcripts of the committees
work and meetings with questions and interviews with two French ministers
Gérard Darmanin, the Economic and Finance minister and Nathalie Loiseau,
Europe Minister. This is a rough translation and I take no responsibility for
errors. The bold parts and underlining are mine and intended to help anyone
wading through this document.
THE CORRECT REFERENCE FOR ALL OF THIS IS THE ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT IN FRENCH, WHICH IS HERE:

http://www.senat.fr/rap/l18-092/l18-0921.pdf?
fbclid=IwAR2SQuWVUfqA0CXNoFiujv2KcdOnBedEW2vIr2pv_dF49g0tgJP0
SwNkFIg

No. 92 SENATE ORDINARY SESSION 2018-2019 Registered with the


Presidency of the Senate on 30 October 2018 REPORT DONE on behalf of
the Special Committee (1) on the draft law (ACCELERATED PROCEDURE)
empowering the Government to make by Order the measures of preparation
for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, by Mr
Ladislas PONIATOWSKIRK OF YOUR SPECIAL COMMISSION:
RESEARCH

A DIFFICULT BALANCE BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRECISION


REQUIREMENT OF EMPOWERMENT AND THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY

THE FINDINGS OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION Meeting on Tuesday, 30


October 2018, under the presidency of Mr. Jean Bizet, the special
commission examined the report of Mr. Ladislas Poniatowski and established
its text on the draft law n ° 9 (2018-2019) authorising the Government to take
the measures of preparation for withdrawal of the United Kingdom of the
European Union. The rapporteur first of all recalled that Brexit would be
effective by 30 March 2019 and that, in the current state of negotiations, the
greatest uncertainty remained on the possibility of concluding an agreement
of withdrawal but also on the ratification of this agreement by the European
Parliament and the British Parliament. He also highlighted the concrete
issues of Brexit: exports to the UK represent 3% of our GDP, about 30 000
French companies export goods or services and 4 million British come to our
territory each year. In accordance with Article 38 of the Constitution, the
purpose of this bill is to authorise the Government to legislate by order to
treat, upstream of Brexit: the situation of the French settled in the United
Kingdom and the British settled in France, the management of flows of
people and goods and the development, as a matter of urgency, of
French railways, ports and airports. According to its rapporteur, the special
commission has admitted the use of orders to take both urgent and temporary
measures. However, the committee adopted sixteen amendments, in
particular to clarify the powers to legislate by ordinances and better regulate
the executive's action (sections 1 and 2 of the bill). The purposes of the
ordinances have been clarified, in accordance with the consistent
jurisprudence of the Constitutional Council: maintenance of the social and
professional rights of the French living in the United Kingdom,
safeguarding French economic activities, preserving the flow of goods
and people, etc. The special commission has also increased the
attractiveness of French territory by facilitating the recognition of
professional qualifications obtained after Brexit (Articles 1 and 2). It also
stated that the derogations granted for redeveloping transport infrastructure
should be "strictly proportionate to the objective of maintaining the security
and fluidity of the flows" (Article 3). Finally, the deadline for tabling the
ratification bill has been reduced from six to three months for Parliament to
act more quickly on Government orders. (Article 4). More generally, the
Special Committee was concerned about a possible failure of negotiations
between the European Union and the United Kingdom, while underlining the
immense work of Michel Barnier, chief negotiator of the Union. She recalled
that Brexit implied a strong mobilisation of the European Commission, to
adapt legislation falling within its remit (fisheries, aviation sector,
medicines, etc.) and to implement a mechanism of European solidarity
in the face of concrete consequences Brexit; - the French administration,
to support our companies and our territories, for whom Brexit represents a
major challenge in terms of attractiveness. Finally, the special commission
ensured that the British municipal councilors elected in 2014 retain their
mandate until the elections of 2020. The special commission adopted the bill
as amended.

GENERAL STATEMENT Ladies and Gentlemen, The Senate is called upon


to take a decision on first reading, following the commencement of the
accelerated procedure, on Bill 9 (2018-2019) authorising the Government to
issue ordinances to measures to prepare the withdrawal of the United
Kingdom from the European Union. For the consideration of this text, the
Senate has decided to set up a special committee chaired by our colleague
Jean Bizet, who is also President of the European Affairs Committee. The
withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union will take effect on
30 March 2019. Under the provisions of Article 50 of the Treaty on European
Union (TEU), this withdrawal may be effected by means of an agreement by
laying down detailed rules and taking into account the framework of its future
relations with the Union. The chief negotiator of the European Union is our
compatriot Michel Barnier, to whom the rapporteur wishes to pay a great
tribute for the tremendous work he has done in this difficult task and which
has made it possible to maintain the unity of the 27. to be applicable in the
United Kingdom from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement
or, failing that, two years after the notification of the decision, ie on 30 March
2019 unless the European Council, in agreement with the United Kingdom
unanimously decided to extend this period. Therefore, it is advisable to
anticipate the British withdrawal regardless of the outcome of the current
negotiations, issue that still appears very uncertain as highlighted by the
European Council of 17 October. This is what this bill, consisting of four
articles, is designed to do by empowering the Government to make by
order the preparatory measures which are the responsibility of the
Member States and which fall within the scope of the law. In doing so, it
does not exhaust - far from it - the field of preparatory measures for the
British withdrawal: many of them come under the European Union
(fishing, aviation, etc.) and others from the national regulatory level. To
carry out its work on the bill, the Senate can draw on the in-depth reflections
of the Monitoring Group on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom and the
refoundation of the European Union, created in June 2016. Established
jointly, at the request of the President of the Senate Gérard Larcher, by the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and the Armed Forces and the
Committee on European Affairs, he is co-chaired by our colleagues Christian
Cambon (who succeeded our former colleague Jean-Pierre Raffarin) and
Jean Bizet. Following a rich and dense hearing program, the monitoring
group has already established two withdrawal information reports from the
United Kingdom1. He also paved the way for a revival of the European
project at the time of Brexit2. This report will focus on the general framework
of the European Union's negotiations with the United Kingdom before
assessing the legislative authority that the Government is seeking under
Article 38 of the Constitution and state the position of the commission. 1
Information Report No. 425 (2016-2017) by MM. Jean-Pierre RAFFARIN and
Jean BIZET, on behalf of the Monitoring Group UK Withdrawal and EU Re-
foundation - 15 February 2017: "Brexit: for an orderly separation". Information
Report No. 660 (2017-2018) by MM. Jean BIZET and Christian CAMBON, on
behalf of the Monitoring Group UK Withdrawal and EU Re-foundation - July
12, 2018: "Brexit: A Race Against Time". 2 Information Report No. 434
Volume I (2016-2017) by MM. Jean-Pierre RAFFARIN and Jean BIZET, on
behalf of the Monitoring Group UK Withdrawal and EU Re-foundation - 22
February 2017: "Relaunching Europe: Recovering the Spirit of Rome".
Information Report No. 592 (2017-2018) by MM. Jean BIZET and Christian
CAMBON, on behalf of the Monitoring Group UK Withdrawal and EU
Rebuilding - June 20, 2018: "The revival of Europe: Time is running out;
Follow-up of the recommendations of the Senate Follow-up Group on the
withdrawal of the United Kingdom and the refoundation of the European
Union ".

THE ABSENCE OF A UNITED KINGDOM WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT: A


REAL RISK A. THE BREXIT: A STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE
1. A step-by-step procedure On 23 June 2016, the British decided, by
referendum, of the exit of their country from the European Union. On 29
March 2017, the British Prime Minister formally notified the President of the
European Council of his intention to withdraw from the European Union and
Euratom on the basis of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
European. As the Senate monitoring group pointed out in its first report, this
decision - which was a shock to European unity - covers a triple challenge: -
that of defining the modalities for the exit of the European Union from the
Kingdom United Kingdom, within two years from the notification of the
withdrawal decision, ie 29 March 2019; - the future relations between the
Union and the United Kingdom once it has become a "third country" again -
and any transitional measures -; -And finally, the most essential finally for the
European Union, the start of the European project now supported by the 27
Member States. On the basis of a notification in March 2017, the "useful"
negotiating time could be established between about fifteen and eighteen
months, so that the withdrawal procedure would be completed before the
European elections in the spring of 2019. Either a very long deadline short,
which should make room for the time required for the ratification of the
withdrawal agreement by the European Union and the United Kingdom. It will
be recalled that, as far as the European Union is concerned, the withdrawal
agreement must be concluded by the Council acting by a qualified majority,
after approval by the European Parliament. For the United Kingdom,
ratification of the agreement by Parliament is required. The Council of the
European Union has entrusted the European Commission with conducting
the negotiations on its behalf1. On 29 April 2017, the European Council set
guidelines for the negotiations. On 22 May 2017, the General Affairs Council
adopted the negotiating directives, which was formally opened on 19 June
2017 under the leadership of Michel Barnier, on behalf of the European
Union. Through its monitoring group, the Senate had clearly identified the
priorities to be pursued by the Union. First of all, to preserve unity 1
Declaration of the Heads of State and Government of 15 December 2016,
confirmed by the guidelines of the European Council of 29 April 2017.And the
cohesion of the 27 Member States; secondly, to inform and consult the
national parliaments that will have to ratify the agreement which will lay down
the framework for future relations between the United Kingdom and the
European Union. The monitoring group also stressed that a state cannot
claim more benefits from being outside the European Union than from
within. He strongly argued that the four freedoms of movement of
persons, goods, capital and services are inseparable and constitute the
counterpart of access to the internal market. It cannot be envisaged to
circumvent the inseparability of the four freedoms by segmenting
access to the single market by sector, both in the withdrawal agreement
and in an agreement laying down the framework for future relations
between the European Union and the United Kingdom. The first phase of
the negotiations took place from June 19 to December 15, 2017. It focused
on the withdrawal agreement. Negotiations concerned three topics which the
European Union had rightly considered to be priorities: the preservation of the
acquired rights of citizens, the single financial regulation of withdrawal and
the very sensitive subject of the particular situation of Ireland. On 15
December 2017, on the basis of a joint negotiators' report adopted on 8
December, the European Council (in 27-member format) considered that
sufficient progress had been achieved on issues related to the withdrawal of
the United Kingdom. He then decided to move to the second phase of the
negotiations on the finalisation of the withdrawal agreement, the definition of
a transition period and the framework of future relations. Meeting at 27, the
European Council of 23 March 2018 welcomed the agreement reached by the
negotiators on 19 March on the parts of the withdrawal agreement covering
the rights of citizens, the Financial Regulation and other issues concerning
withdrawal and transition. Since then, negotiations have continued to resolve
the outstanding issues and to find a solution for Ireland, taking care not to
jeopardize the achievements of the Good Friday agreement, which allowed,
in 1998, the reestablishment of peace in the island. If a withdrawal agreement
were to be signed and ratified, it would come into force in principle on March
30, 2019. In this case, a transition period would start from that date until
December 31, 2020. Throughout this period of transition, the entire acquis of
the European Union would remain applicable in the United Kingdom without
the latter still being able to participate in the European decision-making
process. During the same period, an agreement on the framework of future
relations would be negotiated, the United Kingdom having become a third
State. However, contrary to the objectives, the European Council of 17
October 2018 could only find that the conditions were not met to conclude a
withdrawal agreement, mainly because of a persistent disagreement over the
regulation. of the Irish question, which appears to be the Gordian knot of
negotiation. 2. A perilous procedure From its first report in February 2017, the
Senate Brexit follow-up group had pointed out that a failure of negotiations
was possible. He had clearly identified the issues involved. First a political
stake. The process is now inevitable. It is a question of the European Union
managing a situation it did not want, in the best interests of the Union, while
preserving its unity and cohesion. In this context, it is important not to
transform rivalries into tensions. As pointed out by the follow-up group, the
United Kingdom has sought to best translate what it sees as the wishes of its
public opinion. This is what happened with the Checkers plan, presented by
the British government in July 2018. But this government must also be aware
that the Member States, France and Germany in the first place, will have to
make accounts to their public opinion on the results of the negotiation with
regard to their own interests. The monitoring group argued that the European
Union should not speculate on internal dissent in the United Kingdom, but
that in return it is pointless for the EU to discount divisions within the
European Union. . The geopolitical context requires it to preserve its unity to
influence the international scene. The unity of the European Union is a "red
line" that its external partners must not cross. The union of the 27 must be
preserved. The monitoring group identified the reasons for the failure of the
negotiations as follows: "There are several reasons for this: the timing is
extremely tight in view of the complexity of the negotiations; central issues
(such as British compliance with financial commitments in the European
Union and its financial implications) were not clearly debated during the
referendum debate. Without agreement, the consequences would be brutal
for the United Kingdom, which would ipso facto become a third country falling
within the sole status of a member of the World Trade Organization for its
relations with the European Union. However, the Union would also be
affected by the ricochet. This scenario of the worst seems, if not probable, at
least possible: it must be prepared while doing everything possible to avoid it.
The possibility of a lack of agreement must therefore be anticipated - without
fear on the part of the Europeans, but with lucidity and realism. The elections
in both the Union in 2019 (European elections) and in the United Kingdom
(general elections) will, mechanically, gradually extend the terms of the
debate and reinforce the likelihood of uncooperative scenarios or
"competition of selfishness." In its July report, the monitoring group was
alarmed at the risk of failing to reach an "orderly" exit agreement in time
of the United Kingdom of the European Union. The group had argued
that in the absence of a credible British negotiating position, the
European Union could be left behind. In particular, the British proposal
of 6 July 2018 - the Chequers plan - is similar to a single market "à la
carte", unacceptable for the Union. In addition to recommendations on the
situation of citizens and on the Financial Regulation, the Monitoring Group,
which visited the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in July 2018, had
insisted on the issue of the Irish border it had deemed it to be a true "Gordian
knot" of negotiation. The achievements of the common travel zone (1922) and
the agreement of Good Friday (1998) must be preserved. The establishment
of a physical border between the two parts of Ireland is unthinkable. This is
not an option. However, Brexit will make the intra-Irish border, 500 km long,
an external border of the European Union. At this stage, and without a
credible alternative proposal from the UK authorities, the so-called backstop
option of creating a common customs and regulatory area between the Union
and Northern Ireland is the only credible option. It should be recalled that in
December 2017 the British Prime Minister accepted the European proposal
before facing opposition from the Conservative Party and then from part of
her government. As the monitoring group quite rightly pointed out, the
supporters of the hard Brexit, in a sort of blackmail, would like to put
the European Union in charge of the decisions to be taken to implement
the decision of the British people. It is important for the European Union
to maintain a united front and remain firm on its red lines. However,
despite significant progress, the negotiations were not successful at the
European Council of 17 and 18 October. In a format of 27 Member States, the
Heads of State and Government found that, despite intense negotiations, the
progress made was not enough. At its hearing by the special commission on
23 October 2018, Nathalie Loiseau, Minister for European Affairs, said that,
according to Michel Barnier, much progress has been made since the
beginning of negotiations with the United Kingdom. He believes that the
negotiators have managed to agree on more than 90% of the draft withdrawal
agreement, concerning essential chapters of the negotiation, particularly the
rights of European citizens in the United Kingdom. who should be able to
continue to reside, work and study under the same conditions as those
provided for by European law; concerning the Financial Regulation, since the
United Kingdom finally agreed to fulfill its obligations; and concerning the
establishment of a transitional period, which would open on 30 March 2019
and end on 31 December 2020, during which time the United Kingdom should
continue to apply the entire acquis without participating in the decisional
process. However, as the Minister pointed out, "nothing is approved until
everything is approved"; it is a principle which the Union had fixed from the
beginning of the discussions which are still stumbling over the question of the
Irish frontier. The European Union is now waiting for the UK to clarify its
position on the Irish withdrawal agreement protocol quickly and is really
committed to finding a solution if it wants to avoid withdrawal without
agreement. In addition, an agreement will be reached on a political
declaration on the framework for future relations, which will be attached to the
withdrawal agreement. On this point, the negotiating principles that the 27
agreed on March 23 remain valid, whether the balance between rights and
obligations, or autonomy of decision of the Union. Respect for these
principles will preserve the integrity and cohesion of the Union at 27, while
maintaining a close relationship with the United Kingdom in the future. In
practice, we should move towards the conclusion of a Free Trade Agreement
(FTA) and sectoral cooperation agreements, particularly in the area of
security. In this context, the European Council (Article 50) has asked EU
negotiator Michel Barnier - whom he has reaffirmed full confidence - to
continue his efforts to reach an agreement in line with the guidelines
previously adopted by the European Council. The leaders have declared
themselves ready to convene a meeting of the European Council if the EU
negotiator reports decisive progress. At the time the Senate is called to
consider this bill, the greatest uncertainty remains on the possibility of
concluding a withdrawal agreement with the United Kingdom. Moreover, if
such an agreement were finally concluded, it should still be ratified rapidly,
both by the European Parliament and by the United Kingdom Parliament.
The outcome of the parliamentary procedure is not clear, especially in the
United Kingdom where the Brexit perspective creates strong political
tensions. If the agreement is not to be ratified by either party, then there may
be only a few weeks left for the Union and its Member States to prepare for
the consequences of a -agreement. This situation must be anticipated.

A NECESSARY PREPARATION FOR THE SITUATION ARISING FROM


THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM. A PREPARATION AT
SEVERAL LEVELS
1. The European level
In its conclusions of 29 June, the European Council (Article 50) once again
called on 'the Member States, EU institutions and all stakeholders to step up
their work to prepare for all that will happen at all levels. On 19 July, the
European Commission issued a communication on the preparation of the
withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The European
Commission argues that the withdrawal of the United Kingdom will have
repercussions on citizens, businesses and administrations both in the United
Kingdom and in the Union. These repercussions concern both the
introduction of new controls at the Union's external borders with the United
Kingdom and the validity of permits, certificates and authorizations issued in
the United Kingdom, as well as the different rules applicable to data transfers.
Disruptions may occur - for example, in the supply chains of companies -
whether an agreement is reached or not. The Communication therefore
invites Member States and private actors to intensify their preparations,
following the request of the European Council (Article 50) last June. It can be
noted that for a number of key issues such as air transport or licenses for
Eurostar drivers, decisions will have to be taken at the level of the European
Union. The same will apply to issues relating to fishing, medicines or the
possible decision to reinstate short-stay visas for British nationals. This
means that these issues will not be dealt with by the Member States but by
the European Union. With regard to fisheries, your special commission
highlights the crucial issue of access to British waters which is a priority for a
small-scale fleet. If the United Kingdom intends to preserve the flow of its
fishery products into the single market, it must necessarily in return preserve
the access of European fleets to its territorial waters. Your special
commission also underlines the existence of sensitive bilateral issues such as
that of the scallop in the Bay of Seine which has given rise to controversy and
even clashes between French and English fishermen. It seems essential to
promote an agreement that pacifies the situation by requiring British
fishermen to respect the non-fishing periods for renewal of the species that
French fishermen impose on themselves. The European Commission is also
preparing a development of the state aid scheme in order to give the Member
States a margin for small and medium-sized enterprises which will have to
restructure because of Brexit. The European Commission also tabled a
proposal on 1 August 2018 to amend Regulation 1316/2013 on the
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) to provide for the adaptation of the central
corridor. North Sea - Mediterranean, useful in the perspective of a "hard"
Brexit. By excluding Dunkerque and Calais from the new route, however, the
Commission's proposal uses the possible prospect of a "hard" Brexit to
surreptitiously change the route of one of the nine corridors of the central
transport network of the Union, beyond what would impose a "hard" Brexit,
even temporarily, with an effect in principle limited in time to 31 December
2020. This proposal is obviously unacceptable in the state. This is the
position supported by the Government in the European negotiation. The
European Affairs Committee set up a working group composed of our
colleagues Pascal Allizard, Didier Marie and Jean-François Rapin. The
working group will formaliz
se in the coming weeks a proposal for a European resolution which will
concretise the Senate's opposition to the Commission's draft. The European
Commission has also reviewed the whole of the Union's acquis in order to
examine whether changes were necessary. Its preparatory work for Brexit is
coordinated by its General Secretariat. To this end, the Commission has
adopted specific targeted legislative proposals to ensure that Union rules will
continue to function well in a Union of 27 after the withdrawal of the United
Kingdom. In its work program for 2019, which it published on 23 October
2018, the European Commission indicates that, in addition to six legislative
proposals it has already submitted to the co-legislators, it will present two
other proposals in November which will concern respectively the visa regime
applicable to British nationals after withdrawal and energy efficiency. It also
announces by the end of the year delegated and implementing acts which will
appear necessary. Your rapporteur will underline that the European regulation
will also have to take into account the case of investment firms operating in
the European Union in favor of banks located in the United Kingdom. The
Commission has, in total, formalised more than 60 sectoral communications
on Brexit readiness to inform the public of the consequences of the
withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU. absence of a withdrawal
agreement. In addition, by 30 March 2019, three structures - the European
Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority and the Galileo
Security Monitoring Center - will leave the United Kingdom and will be
transferred to Amsterdam, Paris respectively. and in Spain. A number of tasks
performed by the UK authorities will also have to be reassigned outside the
United Kingdom. 2. France's legislative and regulatory response This
preparation at European level must be combined with actions in the Member
States. The bill introduced by the Government proposes to respond to all
eventualities related to withdrawal from the United Kingdom, whether there is
an agreement or not. To this end, it plans to empower the Government to take
the necessary preparatory measures by order. These measures will not
replace the contingency measures that will be taken by the European Union.
Article 1 of the draft law addresses the consequences of withdrawal
without UK approval for British natural and legal persons subject to
French law. The Government insists that these measures should not be
any more advantageous than those which would prevail in a withdrawal
agreement. Orders for this first part of the bill should be made within
twelve months of the publication of the enabling legislation. The
measures would be aimed first and foremost at the right of entry and
residence in France of British nationals. In case of withdrawal, they will
become nationals of a third State and will have to prove a visa in order
to enter the territory and stay there. British nationals currently living in
France will also have to regularise their situation with the prefectures.
The question of employment will also be addressed: any British national
under a French employment contract with an employer in France should
be required to have a permit valid for work permit in France. The nature
of the activities completes the scheme. Those subject to a legislative or
regulatory status (such as doctors, pharmacists or tobacconists) often
result in a condition of nationality: these jobs are reserved for nationals
of one of the Member States of the Union. European Economic Area or
European Economic Area. Provisions will also have to be made with
regard to the exercise structures of these activities. The same applies to
British civil servants, who will lose their status as civil servants in
France (about 1,715 people affected by the impact study, mostly English
teachers). ). The situation of British nationals with regard to social
security is also dealt with. In case of withdrawal without agreement,
they should no longer be able to benefit from the European
coordination rules. The text also addresses controls on goods and
passengers to and from the United Kingdom. The withdrawal implies, in
fact, a restoration of veterinary and phytosanitary controls at the
borders. Road transport of goods or persons would also be affected, as
British companies could lose their access to the French market. For all
these measures, more favorable treatment than that accorded to third-
country nationals could be envisaged provided that equivalent status is
granted to the United Kingdom to French nationals (principle of
reciprocity). The measures provided for in Article 2 aim at securing the
interests of French nationals, in the event of absence of withdrawal
agreement. Again, the Government would have a period of twelve
months from the publication of the enabling law to make the orders.

This includes ensuring that periods of activity in the United Kingdom are
taken into account before the withdrawal in the calculation of unemployment
insurance and contributory benefits (old age, disability, occupational accident
and occupational disease) . Professional qualifications obtained by French
nationals in the United Kingdom prior to withdrawal will also be recognised.
The same is true in the field of defence for licenses and authorisations for the
transfer of goods and materials to the United Kingdom. Approximately 1500
licenses would no longer be valid after the withdrawal. The access of the
French entities to the UK interbank settlement and settlement systems (CLS,
CHAPS and CREST) must, moreover, be maintained. It is also a question of
allowing the continuity of the framework agreements in the field of financial
services and of securing the conditions of execution of the contracts
concluded before the withdrawal. The transfer of contracts to entities
governed by European Union law should also be considered. The question
of keeping British nationals elected as municipal councilors until the
end of their term of office, initially envisaged by the Government, is not
finally retained in the draft law. Guarantees have however been provided
during the work of your special commission (see below).
Article 2 concerns the carriage of passengers and goods by rail between
France and the United Kingdom. Measures should be adopted at
European level. However, it is a question of anticipating a lack of
validity of the licenses and safety authorisations issued by the United
Kingdom to the transport operators and to ensure the respect by France
of its commitments as a franchise holder in the Channel Tunnel.

Article 3 must make it possible rapidly to provide the necessary adjustments


for the implementation of controls on goods and passengers coming from and
going to the United Kingdom. The text covers ports as well as road, rail
and airport facilities. These improvements would consist of the
construction of roads, car parks, buildings and control areas to carry
out these controls without slowing down the flow of traffic. The
government proposes here to take these measures within six months of the
publication of the enabling legislation.

Finally, Article 4 provides for the tabling of a bill of ratification in Parliament


within six months of the publication of the ordinances. This legislative
component, which will be put in place through the ordinances, will be further
strengthened by a set of regulatory provisions that will appear necessary in
the context of Brexit preparation.

A Constitutional Requirement for legislation by way of prescriptions is, in


principle, not a good method. It is for Parliament to transfer to the government
its sovereign right to develop and enact laws that then have very concrete
effects in the daily lives of our fellow citizens. It thus deprives the legislative
procedure of the democratic debate essential to the quality of the laws and
their acceptance by the citizens. Experience shows that the argument of
speed often put forward by the Government is very often denied by the facts,
the procedure of ordinances not allowing a real time saving in the adoption of
the legislative texts. In addition, the status of orders is precarious and calls
into question legal certainty. Indeed, until their ratification, they have only a
simple regulatory value. They acquire legislative value only when the bill of
ratification is placed on the agenda and the ordinances are expressly ratified.
A new law is then necessary to modify them. Of course, at the stage of
examining the ratification bill, Parliament must be able to regain all its power
of control to validate or not the work done by the Executive. The Government
has the obligation to submit a ratification bill. However, ratification of an order
is not mandatory. In practice, the Government too often omits to put
ratification bills on the agenda of assemblies: for the 2016-2017 parliamentary
session, bills were introduced in the Senate to ratify 71 orders; 53 of them
have still not been ratified due to lack of registration on the agenda. Still, the
procedure of the ordinances is envisaged by article 38 of the Constitution.
When the Government uses them, it uses a constitutional prerogative. It is
therefore incumbent on Parliament to examine the Government's request for
authorization by assessing the merits of the purposes it puts forward. It is only
in the light of well-defined circumstances that Parliament may consent to
temporarily delegate its sovereign right. In view of the stakes involved in the
announced withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, your
special committee considered that the Senate could accept the authorization
requested. A whole series of measures - some derogations from common law
- will indeed have to be taken in a certain number of areas, in particular with
regard to the right of the people, in a very fast time in the approach of the
deadline of March 30 2019. It is important that France be armed very quickly
in terms of legislation to deal with the foreseeable consequences of Brexit,
particularly in the absence of a withdrawal agreement, but also if an
agreement is finally reached. It should be added that the tight time limits do
not permit the immediate negotiation of treaties or bilateral agreements with
the United Kingdom, which would make it possible to settle the various
pending issues because of Brexit. On the other hand, when such agreements
can be negotiated and concluded, they will have the role of substituting for
the ordinances insofar as they contain the relevant measures in the field
covered by the ordinances. Your special commission stresses however that
the authorisation can be granted only with the express reservation that it is
precise and that therefore the field of action given to the Government to
intervene unilaterally in the field of the Law is clearly stated and framed . The
accuracy of the Government's request for authorisation is, in fact, a
constitutional requirement. According to the case law of the Constitutional
Council, the Government must inform Parliament of the aims (objectives) of
the order and the areas of intervention (parts of the right proposed to be
amended) 1. The Constitutional Council has the Constitutional Council, 26
June 1986, Act authorising the Government to take various economic and
social measures, Decision No. 86-207 DC. which has recently been
censored, an authorisation to legislate by ordinances aimed, without further
details, to "redefine" the mechanisms for the integration of disabled persons1.
On the other hand, the Government is not obliged to "inform Parliament of the
(exact) content of the orders it will make under this authority" 2. This
requirement of precision has been put forward by the Council of State in its
opinion on the draft law. However, the Government did not wish to transmit
this document to Parliament - contrary to the practice in use since 2015 - for
reasons derived from the necessary discretion regarding the conduct of
negotiations with the United Kingdom. Before your special commission, the
minister in charge of European affairs has justified in its terms the decision of
the Government: "The text fully takes into account the opinion addressed to
him by the Council of State. This opinion enabled us to improve the text, in
particular by specifying more clearly the purpose of the measures envisaged
along the lines suggested by him and by removing from them a provision
which was not necessary, concerning the retention of British municipal
councillors. In the current state of the law, the Council of State has
confirmed to us that the elected representatives of British nationality
will be able to continue their mandate until its term and that it was
therefore not appropriate to include a provision to this effect. The
Conseil d'État makes it clear in its opinion that, in this new wording, the text
complies with the constitutional requirements. The Government hoped that
this opinion would not be published so as not to give any sensible indication
to the other party of this negotiation, as is customary in the conduct of
international relations. Your rapporteur regrets this choice of the Government.
By giving no publicity to the opinion of the Council of State, the Government
creates a mystery where there is none. It is also this same motivation of
precision of the authorization which leads your special commission to submit
to the Senate a text specifying in several points the authorization requested.
On the initiative of its rapporteur, your committee has for example specified
the purposes of Article 1 of the draft law, with the objective of legal certainty: -
to draw the consequences of the absence of withdrawal agreement on the
situation, in France, British nationals; - preserve economic activities on
French territory; 1 Constitutional Council, 4 September 2018, Freedom of
Choice Act, Decision 2017-751 DC. 2 Constitutional Council, 7 September
2017, Enabling Acts to Enhance the Social Dialogue Act, Decision 2017-751
DC. - preserve the flow of goods and people from the United Kingdom; - to
guarantee a high level of health security in France; - provide for derogations,
simplified administrative procedures and regularization periods for the legal or
natural persons concerned. 2. A need for flexibility imposed by the context of
the negotiations The Enabling Bill is marked by a need for flexibility that
manifests itself in four directions. First constraint: the content of the orders will
be impacted according to whether they must respond to the situation created
by the conclusion of a withdrawal agreement or, on the contrary, by the
absence of such an agreement. For the reasons recalled above, the prospect
of concluding a withdrawal agreement appears, at this stage, very uncertain.
But it can not be ruled out that the negotiations can finally come to an end.
Your rapporteur recalls that the law passed in the United Kingdom set 29
March as the date for leaving the European Union. The British argued that a
six-month delay was necessary to complete the parliamentary debate on a
draft withdrawal agreement. It is therefore around 15-30 November at the
latest that a withdrawal agreement should be concluded for ratification in the
UK to be completed. Unfortunately, it can not be excluded that a draft
withdrawal agreement will ultimately be rejected very late, on the eve of the
effective withdrawal of the United Kingdom on 29 March. In total, two articles
(Articles 1 and 2) take into account the absence of a withdrawal agreement;
the orders contemplated will therefore no longer be necessary if an
agreement is ultimately found. Article 3, on the other hand, deals with the
construction of infrastructures that will in any case be necessary whether or
not there is a withdrawal agreement. The content of the orders taken on this
basis should, where appropriate, be adapted according to the agreement
which will lay down the framework for future relations between the European
Union and the United Kingdom. Second constraint: the orders will have to
take into account the measures that will be taken at the level of the European
Union. As your rapporteur has already pointed out, many of the measures
that will be required will not be the responsibility of the Member States. This
means that in the areas concerned, the latter will essentially be responsible
for applying European regulations. Where necessary, coordination will be
necessary between the European rules and the national provisions
implemented via the ordinances. It is therefore essential that a close
consultation be established between our administration, under the guidance
of the General Secretariat for European Affairs (SGAE), and the European
Commission. through its General Secretariat which constitutes the "linchpin"
of the process of preparation at European level. The European Commission
has already prepared eight draft legislative acts to anticipate withdrawal.
Emergency measures will also be necessary. Third constraint: the content of
the orders will also be conditioned by the measures in the same direction
taken by the other Member States; France will have to seek harmonization
with the large Member States, in particular Germany. According to the
information provided by the Government on the basis of the assessments
made by the European Commission, four Member States appear - like France
- well advanced in their preparation for Brexit: Germany, the Netherlands,
Belgium and the Netherlands. Ireland. In contrast, other Member States may
seem less prepared. But they are also potentially less impacted. With regard
to Germany, two texts are already under examination in the Bundestag,
whether it is the law on the transitional period or the law on the repatriation of
companies established in the United Kingdom (8 to 10,000 companies would
be affected). The law on the status of British civil servants was adopted on 27
September. In addition, the necessary link between the federal and the
Länder levels depends on the division of powers. Nesting appears even
stronger in Belgium given the institutional structure. In September, the
Belgian government announced the recruitment of 141 customs officers, who
are expected to be operational by April 2019. The ports of Zeebrugge and
Antwerp should receive special attention. A website has also been put online
at the initiative of the Ministry of Economy to inform companies. An online
diagnostic tool was also created to assess business readiness (Brexit Impact
Scan). In addition, since June 2016, a high-level group has been responsible
for mapping the consequences of Brexit and helping businesses. The
Netherlands has provided for additional budgetary resources and undertook
actions to raise awareness among businesses. Bilateral trade with the United
Kingdom, third largest trading partner, accounts for 10% of GDP and a "hard"
Brexit could cost, according to some estimates, up to 4.25 percentage points
of GDP by 2030. The government plans to to recruit 928 customs officers and
veterinary inspectors. The draft budget law for 2019 already reserves an
additional € 90 million for capacity building of customs and phytosanitary
control authorities, which also face recruitment difficulties. 35 000 companies
trading with the United Kingdom with no experience other than the single
market will have to deal with customs procedures for the first time. The Dutch
government has set up a continuous news site. Brexit's impact assessment
tool has been put online by the public business support agency and a "Brexit
buddies" campaign to help large companies with SMEs has just been
launched , as well as a website for help and advice. The Dutch government is
also pursuing a tax policy conducive to investment and attractiveness,
including a lowering of the corporate tax rate (from 25 to 22.25%). Lastly, the
government presented a letter to Parliament indicating the contingency
measures envisaged. It targets several fields: citizenship, transport, financial
services, border controls, health and environment. Your rapporteur will put
particular emphasis on Ireland's strong commitment to preparing for Brexit.
The country has planned to recruit some 1,000 additional customs officers.
Low-interest loans could be available to small and medium-sized enterprises
that are highly exposed to the consequences of UK withdrawal, particularly in
the agri-food sector. A fund has been set up, the Brexit Loan Scheme, with
300 million euros, 40% of which is directed towards support for the agri-food
sector. A subsidy of up to € 5,000 is thus provided for companies developing
a Brexit strategy. The country is also working hard to adapt its port structures.
This commitment is all the more necessary as 80% of the flow between
Ireland and the European continent is currently through the United Kingdom.
Brexit will inevitably lead to reorientation of the traffic. In addition, Ireland
intends to assert its strengths in the relocation of financial services in its
territory. Fourth constraint: the measures adopted will, moreover, be subject
to reciprocity on the part of the United Kingdom. Their content may therefore
be modified according to the existence or not of this reciprocity. British Prime
Minister Theresa May has made reassuring remarks about how European
citizens will be treated. But she also put forward the concept of "chosen
immigration" that would apply to all nationalities. At this stage, therefore, care
should be taken not to exclude an adaptation of the measures applicable to
British nationals on the basis of the existence or otherwise of reciprocity for
EU nationals living in the United Kingdom. Given these constraints in the
opposite direction, the consideration of the bill by the Senate must therefore
both meet the constitutional requirement of precision of the authorization and
not jeopardize the necessary flexibility to adapt to the situation to which the
orders will have to endeavor to respond. This is the meaning of the text
prepared by your special commission which it submits for the approval of the
Senate. A requirement: the preparation of administrations and increased
awareness of the consequences of Brexit Your Special Committee would like
to stress that preparations for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom do not
can be summarized as the adoption of laws and regulations, however useful
they may be. During his hearing by your committee, Mr. Gerald Darmanin,
Minister of Action and Public Accounts, argued that the French administration
will be able to manage the flow from the United Kingdom, mainly via Calais.
The main issue will be the transition period. The United Kingdom has already
asked for a transit agreement to be concluded. But the customs
administration is also preparing for the lack of a withdrawal agreement and
transition period. 700 FTEs ("full-time equivalents") will be recruited. Of this
total, 250 customs officers have already been trained and are awaiting
assignment; 350 are provided for in the draft budget law for 2019; A further
100 will be budgeted in 2020. By contrast, the creation of 40 posts under the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food may appear quite small. But in the end, it is
the nature and importance of the sanitary and phytosanitary controls to be
carried out that will make it possible to determine more precisely the
personnel needs. In any case, controls should not be systematic. A
procedure for registering goods at a distance from the border may be
set up and the technological means will be solicited. The purpose of the
control of the goods will be to ensure the protection of the single
market and to ensure the safety of the Channel Tunnel and the ports
concerned. It will be added that, faced with the challenge that Brexit
represents for our economy, it is more than ever necessary to promote
an administration that supports our ports, businesses and territories in
order to enable them to better adapt and strengthen their
competitiveness. This is an urgent necessity in the face of the risk of
diversion of traffic to other European ports such as Antwerp or
Rotterdam. It is also the way for our ports to capture a significant
portion of traffic from Ireland. Brexit generates a cost for the state
budget and that of local authorities and public and private operators.
However, following the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, France with
other Member States will act as a "gateway" to the single market for
goods from the United Kingdom. It will also welcome people who can
then circulate in the European area. This is why your special commission
considers it necessary for European financial solidarity to be expressed
through a dedicated fund. It would be logical for this issue to be taken into
account in the ongoing discussions on the next financial framework of the
European Union. It was pointed out to your rapporteur that the request to this
effect was made to the European Commission by the French authorities. The
preparation of administrations and the matching of budgetary resources must
go hand-in-hand with raising awareness among stakeholders interested in the
consequences of Brexit. It is regrettable that the awareness was late. It is
now important to engage all actors to prepare themselves as best as
possible. Your rapporteur was told that a website was being developed for
different audiences. Customs has established lists of companies involved in
trade with the United Kingdom. The number of exporting companies to the
United Kingdom is approximately 30 000. These companies are contacted
by the regional customs directorates for the purposes of raising awareness.
Information meetings for SMEs are also organised. Five regions seem to be
mainly concerned: Île-de-France, Hauts-de-France, Normandy, Auvergne-
Rhône-Alpes and Occitanie. The sectors mainly impacted would be agri-food,
pharmaceuticals, aeronautics and automobiles. As evidenced by the hearing
of port, logistics and transport representatives, Brexit represents a major
challenge for these activities. It is therefore important to support the
adjustments that will be necessary in the ports, not only in the two largest of
them, namely Le Havre and Dunkirk, but also in the entire network of State
ports and decentralised ports. , who participate in the dynamics of the
territories and all will, in various ways, the repercussions of Brexit. These
ports are also facing a common challenge of attractiveness, while Brexit could
lead to increased competition between European ports, with the risk of
diversion of traffic to Antwerp and Rotterdam in particular. In particular,
French ports must make their attractiveness vis-à-vis Ireland, given the
foreseeable changes in traffic. The regional councils must be force behind
proposals in this field. The Hauts-de-France region, directly concerned by
these issues, is particularly mobilised. France must also intensify its
attractiveness campaigns to attract on its soil financial services hitherto
established in the United Kingdom. This can be done through tax measures
but also by matching the supply, particularly in the field of education. Your
rapporteur has been informed that a European school is located in
Courbevoie, mainly financed from European funds. Two other
international high schools will open their doors in Île-de-France by the
start of the school year 2022 to accommodate, among others, "the
children of Brexit": Saclay (91) and Vincennes (94). This will bring to
nine the number of international high schools located in the region

The situation of the British municipal councillors Responding to the


constitutional mission of the Senate as representative of the local and
regional authorities (Article 24 of the Constitution), your special commission
was concerned about the situation, after the withdrawal from the United
Kingdom, of the municipal councilors of British nationality, elected in 2014,
about 900 people according to information collected by your rapporteur. In
accordance with the Community acquis1 and Article 88-3 of the
Constitution, European citizens are allowed to stand for municipal
elections2. On the other hand, they can not perform the duties of mayor
or deputy mayor3. After Brexit, British nationals will no longer be
eligible for the French municipal elections. However, the question arises
of the British elected municipal councillors in 2014: will they be able to
go to the end of their mandate or will they be considered as having
resigned automatically in the aftermath of Brexit? The bill tabled on the
Senate office does not deal with this issue, which may have been
misleading. However, after exchanges with the Government, only the
first hypothesis seems possible: except resignation for personal
reasons, the British elected in 2014 will remain city councilors until the
next municipal elections (2020). Admittedly, Articles L. 230 and L. 236 of
the Electoral Code provide that "may not be municipal councilors (...)
individuals deprived of the electoral right" and specify that the persons
concerned are declared resignatory ex officio by the prefect. However, these
provisions concern only municipal councillors deprived of their civil rights after
a criminal conviction, which does not correspond to the case in point. In
addition, in accordance with Article 88-3 of the Constitution, only an organic
law voted in the same terms by the National Assembly and the Senate may
modify the right to vote and to be elected by European citizens residing in
France. For example, Article LO 236 of the Electoral Code 1 Council Directive
94/80 / EC of 19 December 1994 laying down the procedures for the exercise
of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections for
citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not
nationals. 2 Article LO 228-1 of the electoral code. 3 Article LO 2122-4-1 of
the general code of local authorities. 4 See, for example, the following
judgment: Conseil d'État, 25 July 2013, City Council of Fos-sur-Mer, case no.
provides for the automatic resignation of citizens European citizens deprived
of the right of eligibility in their State of origin. In the state of the law, there is
no provision of an organic nature providing for the resignation, by reason of
Brexit, of the British elected in the municipal elections of 2014. However, the
provisions governing ineligibility are strictly interpreted, as recalled by the
Constitutional Council1. As a result, British nationals elected in 2014 will
retain their mandate as councillors until the 2020 elections. * * * Your
committee has adopted the bill as amended. 1 Constitutional Council, April
12, 2011, Organic Law on the Election of Deputies and Senators, Decision
Article 1 The purpose of Article 1 of the draft law is to empower the
Government to make regulations to draw the consequences of a Brexit
without agreement on the British subject to French law. General framework of
the authorisation The constitutional requirements According to the
jurisprudence of the Constitutional Council, the request for authorisation of
the Government must indicate with sufficient precision: - the aims (objectives)
of the order; - its sectors of intervention (parts of the right proposed to be
amended) 1. On the other hand, the Government is not obliged to "inform
Parliament of the (exact) content of the orders it will make under this
authority" 2. In 2018, the Constitutional Council censored for lack of precision
an authorisation to legislate by ordinances aiming to "redefine" the devices of
insertion of the handicapped persons3. The themes of empowerment The
authorization to legislate by Article 1 ordinances would cover seven clearly
defined themes: right of entry and residence in France, employment,
regulated professions, public service, social rights, veterinary and
phytosanitary controls , road transport operations for goods or persons.
Subject to reciprocity, these orders could grant the British more favorable
treatment than that provided for third-country nationals. The original bill
referred to a decree to fix the date of this reciprocity. On the initiative of its
rapporteur, your committee has the Constitutional Council, 26 June 1986, Act
authorising the Government to take various economic and social measures,
Decision No. 86-207 DC. 2 Constitutional Council, 7 September 2017,
Enabling Acts to Enhance the Social Dialogue Act, Decision 2017-751 DC. 3
Constitutional Council, 4 September 2018, Freedom of Choice Act, Decision
2017-751 DC. deleted this reference, considering that it should be operated
directly in the ordinances, not in the enabling law (amendment COM-12 of the
rapporteur). The purposes of the authorisation The purposes of this
authorisation appear less clearly in the original draft law: the orders would
aim "inter alia" to adapt "common law legislation to deal with situations in
progress" and to provide, "where appropriate , derogations ". In addition, a
"sweeping" authorisation would enable the Government to "take any other
measure necessary to deal with the situation of British nationals residing in
France or carrying on business there, as well as legal persons established in
the United Kingdom and carrying on business in France. ". At the initiative of
its rapporteur, your special committee adopted two amendments by its
rapporteur (COM-10 and 11) to clarify the power to legislate by ordinances, in
accordance with constitutional case law. Your committee first recalled that
Article 1 of the draft law aims to draw the consequences of a Brexit without
agreement on the situation in France of the British but also on the
preservation of economic activities and flows of goods and services. people.
In addition, following a proposal by our colleague Laurent Duplomb, your
special committee recalled that the measures taken must guarantee a high
level of health security in France. Similarly, the Government would be
explicitly empowered to provide for lighter administrative procedures and
regularisation periods for the persons concerned. All derogations taken by
orders would be applicable until the entry into force of treaties or bilateral
agreements between France and the United Kingdom, which will define the
new framework of relations between the two States. The period of
authorisation The Government would have twelve months from the
publication of the enabling law to make the orders. Your special commission
wondered about this delay. If this law is published in November 2018, the
Government may issue orders until November 2019, even though the United
Kingdom will leave the European Union on 30 March 2019.

At its hearing before your committee, Ms Nathalie Loiseau, Minister of the


Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, in charge of European Affairs,
however, said that this one-year period could prove useful if the members of
the European Union decided to delay Brexit by a few months.

1 ° - Right of entry and residence of British nationals in France The


Government would be empowered by orders to draw the consequences
of a Brexit without agreement on "the right of entry and residence of
British nationals in France".
1.1.1. The current situation Like all European citizens, British nationals
now enjoy a right of entry and, under certain conditions, stay in France1.
Indeed, in accordance with Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU), "every citizen of the Union has the right to move
and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the
limitations and the conditions provided for by the Treaties and the provisions
adopted for their application. This principle is implemented by Directive
2004/38 / EC of 29 April 20042 and, at national level, by Articles L. 121-1 to L.
122-3 of the Code on Entry and Stay of Foreigners and asylum law
(CESEDA). As a result, European citizens benefit from a more
advantageous situation than third-country nationals to the European
Union, who must present a visa and then a residence permit to enter
and stay in France. Entry into French territory and short stay:
exemption from an entry visa When traveling to France, a British
national is exempted from producing an entry visa, unlike third country
nationals. Before the French authorities, he simply presents his British
identity card or his valid passport. Once in France, this British national
can stay there for three months without any other administrative
formalities (short stay) 3. 1 This right of entry and residence is also
extended to Swiss nationals and nationals of the States of the European
Economic Area (Article L 121-1 of the Code of Entry and Stay of Foreigners
and Asylum, CESEDA ). 2 Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move
and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221 / EEC,
68/360 / EEC, 72/194 / EEC, 73/148 / EEC, 75/34 / EEC, 75/35 / EEC,
90/364 / EEC, 90/365 / EEC and 93 / 96 / EEC. 3 Articles 5 and 6 of the
aforementioned Directive 2004/38 / EC of 29 April 2004. On the other hand,
members of his family must produce such an entry visa when they are not
European citizens or, failing that, a title in the United Kingdom. residence
issued by another Member State of the European Union. However, their
administrative procedures are simplified compared to ordinary law
procedures. The long stay: the residence permit exemption A British
national is authorised to stay for more than three months in France
(long stay) when he meets one of the following three conditions: - he
has a professional activity in France; - without a professional activity, it
has health insurance and "sufficient resources", the amount of which
corresponds to that of the active solidarity income (RSA, about 550
euros for a single person) 4; - he is enrolled in a French educational
institution. Since 20035, a British national no longer has the obligation
to hold a French residence permit, even if he stays for more than three
months on our territory. He must simply register at the town hall of his
commune of residence6. When they come from a third country to the
European Union, the members of their family obtain a specific residence
permit, provided for in Article L. 121-3 of the CESEDA and for a maximum
duration of five years renewable . Finally, a British national and his or her
family members have a "right of permanent residence" when they have
been uninterrupted residents in France for at least five years. This right
to permanent residence is more favorable than common law, in particular
because family members obtain a ten-year residence permit, automatically
renewable8. 1 For the purposes of the aforementioned Directive 2004/38 / EC
of 29 April 2004, the term "family members" includes: spouse or partner,
children under 21 or dependent, father and mother of the British national. 2
For example, the visa application of family members of a European national is
processed in the context of a fast-track and free procedure provided for in
Article R. 121-1 of the CESEDA. 3 Article 7 of the aforementioned Directive
2004/38 / EC of 29 April 2004 and Article L. 121-1 of the CESEDA. 4 Article
R. 121-4 of the CESEDA. 5 Law n ° 2003-1119 of November 26th, 2003
relating to the control of the immigration, the stay of the foreigners in France
and the nationality. 6 The British national who fails to register at the Town Hall
is liable to a fine; his right to stay is not called into question (article R. 621-1
of CESEDA). 7 Article 16 of the aforementioned Directive 2004/38 / EC of 29
April 2004 and Article L. 121-1 of the CESEDA. 8 This special residence
permit is marked "member of the family of a European citizen".

1.1.2. The challenges of Brexit


Every year, about 4 million Britons enter French territory (short stay). In
addition, between 150,000 and 250,000 Britons stay in France (long stay);
68% of them are between 15 and 64 years old. Their location is concentrated
in three regions: New Aquitaine (26% of Britons settled in France), Occitanie
(17%) and Ile-de-France (13%)

1.1.3. The answers envisaged by France After Brexit,


the United Kingdom will be considered as a third State to the European
Union: its nationals will no longer benefit from the principle of free
movement. To enter France, the British and their family members will
have to apply for: - a short-stay visa for stays of less than three months,
the rules of which are set by the European Union; - or a long-stay visa,
for stays longer than three months, whose delivery rules are set by
France. This visa requirement will represent an additional burden for
French embassies and consulates. According to the information
gathered by your rapporteur, it could go as far as doubling the number
of visas issued by France. If they wish to settle in France (flow), British
nationals should now apply for a residence permit, in the same way as
nationals of third countries to the European Union. Even if they now
enjoy a "right to permanent residence", the British who already live in
France (stock) would be staying illegally, for lack of a residence permit,
and should regularize their situation with of the prefecture. This point
was confirmed at the hearing by Nathalie Loiseau, Minister for Europe
and Foreign Affairs, in charge of European Affairs. Similarly, relatives of
British nationals would lose their residence card "members of the
family of a citizen of the Union". However, they could apply for a
residence permit for another reason, such as respect for their private
life for example. The British and their family members could also apply
for French nationality if they comply with the conditions laid down in
Articles 21 to 21. 29 of the civil code (marriage with a French person for
more than four years, habitual residence in France for more than five
years, etc.). The power to legislate by ordinance would allow the
Government to draw the consequences of a Brexit without agreement
on entry (long-stay visas1) and the stay in France of the British. For
example, simplified procedures could be provided for the issuance of
their residence permits. Only an agreement on Brexit or a subsequent
international agreement would allow British nationals to be exempted
from the presentation of the certificate. a visa or a residence permit. In
addition, exempting the British from a short-stay visa would require an
agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

2 ° - Employment of British nationals


1.2.1.
Existing law European law enshrines the principle of free movement of
workers (Article 45 of the Treaty on European Union) and the principle
of freedom of establishment (Article 49 of the Treaty on European
Union) for European citizens. Under the terms of these articles,
nationals 1 The short-stay visa regime is fixed by the European Union,
not by France (see above). The United Kingdom may work freely in
another Member State, observing, where appropriate, certain conditions
of employment. 1.2.2. Consequences in case of withdrawal without
agreement According to the impact study transmitted by the
Government, 52% of the 150,000 British nationals living in France are
currently employed. In case of withdrawal without agreement, a British
national finds himself in the position of a national of a non-Member
State to the European Union, the European Economic Area and
Switzerland. In these circumstances, he should be required to have a
title valid for work permit in France. In the absence of this document,
any employer could be held liable (Article L. 8251-1 of the Labor Code).
It should be recalled that a national from a non-EU Member State
applying for an "employee" or "temporary worker" residence permit
must submit to the prefecture a work contract approved by the regional
directorates of companies, competition, consumption, labor and
employment (DIRECCTE) 1, except when the duration of the activity is
less than three months and concerns one of the areas listed in a decree.
The DIRECCTE granted 38,550 work permits to foreigners in 2017, for 6,600
refusals. These refusals are opposed when the employment situation - ie the
unemployment rate - in the sector of activity and the living area concerned is
considered too tense4. Authorisation is nevertheless granted when it is a
question of exercising an activity in a trade or a geographical zone
characterized by recruitment difficulties ("jobs under tension"). The list of
"jobs under pressure" is fixed by a joint decree of the ministers in charge of
employment and immigration, after consultation with the unions of employers
and representative employees5. However, this list has not been updated
since 2008. 1 Article L. 5221-2 of the Labor Code. 2 Article D. 5221-2-1 of the
Labor Code mentions, in particular, participation in sports, cultural, artistic and
scientific events, modelling and artistic pose, auditing and expertise missions
in computer science, management , finance, insurance, architecture and
engineering. 3 Bill for a controlled immigration and an effective right of
asylum, Report n ° 552 (2017-2018) of Mr François-Noël BUFFET, made on
behalf of the Senate Law Commission, tabled on June 6, 2018. 4 Article R.
5221-20 of the Labor Code. 5 Order of 18 January 2008 on the issue, without
opposition to the employment situation, of work permits to foreigners who are
not nationals of a Member State of the European Union or of another State
Party to the European Union European Economic Community or the Swiss
Confederation.
1.2.3. The responses proposed by the Government in the event of
a withdrawal without agreement from the United Kingdom of the
European Union would lead to the establishment of a new legal regime
to allow British nationals to continue their activity in France beyond
March 30. The Government wishes, as far as possible, to limit the
impact of a change of status and maintain the employability of British
nationals living in France and not affect the activity of the companies
that pay them. It asks, in this context, to be empowered to legislate by
ordinances to adopt, within twelve months, the measures concerning
the employment of nationals legally exercising on the date of
withdrawal from the United Kingdom of the European Union a paid
professional activity (Article 1 (2)). Under these conditions, a
transitional regime should be implemented in line with the one
established by residence permits. In this context, your rapporteur wants
the scheme to be as simple as possible. The period of 3 to 4 months
usually observed to obtain a work permit. Parliament has already, through
Article 52 of Law No. 2018-778 of 10 September 2018 for controlled
immigration, an effective right of asylum and successful integration,
authorised the Government to make, by ordinance, any measure within the
scope of the law to simplify the system of work permits for the recruitment of
certain categories of employees by companies receiving special recognition
by the State. In this case, it is a matter of going in the same direction and
facilitating the maintenance of British nationals already living in French
territory. The bill only deals with the case of British employees already
settled in France. This option may contradict the desire to increase the
attractiveness of the French territory and to facilitate the redeployment
of activities based in the United Kingdom on the eve of the withdrawal.
The aim is to be able to immediately benefit from the skills and
professional qualifications obtained by British employees and thus
accelerate the installation of these companies on our territory. Your
committee has therefore adopted amendment COM-16 of its rapporteur
specifying Article 1 2 °, so that it also targets British employees called
upon to exercise a professional activity in companies located in the
United Kingdom, at the the date of the withdrawal of the United
Kingdom from the European Union, having made the choice to deploy in
France after this one.
3 ° - Exercise of a professional activity
Article 1 3 ° covers the conditions for the exercise of a profession
regulated in France by British nationals or holders of a professional
qualification obtained in the United Kingdom. United. It also deals with
the situation of legal persons under British law.
1.3.1. Existing law (1) Regulated professions Activities subject to
a legislative or regulatory status (such as doctors, pharmacists or
tobacconists) often result in a condition of nationality in France: these
jobs are reserved for nationals of one of the Member States of the
European Union or the European Economic Area.Specific rules also
apply to law and legal professionals, taxis, architects, driving schools,
hairdressers, some real estate professions, engineers or opticians. (2)
Professional qualifications 240 professions are concerned in France by
a condition of professional qualifications. British nationals and other
European citizens enjoy the freedom of establishment in France. They
are also covered by the Directive on the recognition of professional
qualifications adopted in 20051 and amended in 2013.2 The European
system has been transposed into French law via a cross-cutting order3 and
several sectoral texts (two ordinances, 33 decrees and 34 orders). These
texts highlight the principle of mutual recognition: a professional qualification
obtained in one Member State may allow access to that profession in another
Member State and exercise it. Only the activities of notaries and professions
participating in the exercise of public authority are excluded from the scheme.
The method of recognition of qualifications differs according to the activity
that the European citizen intends to take on the territory: - In case of
establishment, the European citizen must have his qualifications recognized
by the relevant authority of the host State. It has 1 Directive 2005/36 / EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the
recognition of professional qualifications. 2 Directive 2013/55 / EU of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending
Directive 2005/36 / EC on the recognition of professional qualifications. 3
Ordinance No. 2016-1809 of 22 December 2016 on the recognition of
professional qualifications of regulated professions between 3 and 4 months
to make known its position. Any rejection must be motivated. Skills tests and
an internship of up to three years may be required; - In the case of temporary
provision of services in another country, a written preliminary declaration is
sufficient. However, if the profession concerned may have a serious impact
on safety or health, it may be possible for the host State to carry out a prior
verification of qualifications, which may take two months. A prior declaration
may also be requested from the professional. The revision of the system in
2013 allowed the establishment of a European professional card, introduced
profession by profession if certain preconditions are fulfilled (significant or
potential mobility in the profession concerned, expression of a sufficient
interest by the actors in the field, regulated profession or training in a
sufficient number of Member States). Once recognized professional
qualifications, it may be mandatory to be registered with a professional body
before you can use the professional title and start practicing. A language
proficiency check may also be requested. A special device is provided by
European law for the profession of lawyer. The recognition of professional
qualifications is, in fact, covered by two Directives of 1977 and 1998.1 These
texts provide for automatic recognition of the title issued in the Member State
of origin. Lawyers can thus provide temporary and occasional services in
another Member State or settle there. The exercise of the profession is
accomplished under the original title. After a period of at least three years, an
assimilation procedure may be initiated to benefit from the local title. (3) Legal
persons Exercise companies of the regulated liberal professions or holding
companies - like the companies of financial participations of liberal
professions - can be held directly or indirectly by professionals established in
another Member State of the profession. 'European Union. The legal and
judicial professions (lawyers and lawyers to the councils, notaries, bailiffs,
judicial auctioneers, administrators and judicial agents, clerks of the
commercial courts), the accountants, the architects and the 1 Directive
77/249 / EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise of the
freedom to provide services by lawyers and Directive 98/5 / EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on the
facilitation of the permanent exercise of the profession lawyer in a Member
State other than that in which the qualification was acquired: occupations
(expert surveyors, agricultural forestry experts, industrial property advisers)
are the main ones1. French law also authorizes the exercise in France of a
branch of a company whose registered office is in another Member State. As
of January 1, 2018, 23 British offices in France (LLP) employed 2,500
lawyers.

1.3.2. Consequences in the event of withdrawal without agreement


A withdrawal without agreement would have three consequences in these
categories of employment: - British nationals would have to renounce to carry
out the trades fulfilling a condition of nationality; - professional qualifications
obtained in the United Kingdom would no longer be recognized in France; -
Professional societies owned by British professionals based in the United
Kingdom or branches of companies established in the United Kingdom should
cease operations.

1.3.3. Responses proposed by the Government


The Government wishes, as far as possible and in accordance with the
principle of reciprocity, to limit the economic impact of the withdrawal
and to maintain the activities concerned by this change of status. It
proposes to this effect to take by order any measure within the scope of the
law without specifying the terms. The hearings conducted by your rapporteur
show that the government intends to implement a two-step approach: a
transitional phase in which the activities concerned can continue and then
regularisation. UK branches will have to change their status at the end of the
transitional period. On the other hand, nothing has been specified in respect
of professions subject to nationality requirements or professional
qualifications. The impact study sent by the Government emphasises the
need, first, to carry out a "comprehensive census" of all the professions
concerned by conditions of access or exercise. Your rapporteur considers that
it could be envisaged that the regime provided for the right of residence of
British nationals gives the right to exercise activities subject to nationality.
This option would be possible provided that similar provisions are
adopted in the United Kingdom for professions subject to nationality.
Health professions are not eligible for this type of device. The desire to
maintain economic activity also determines the assessment of the question of
professional qualifications. The "stock" logic underlying Article 1 as a
whole, which is intended to cover the situation of all British nationals
settled on our territory at the date of withdrawal, calls for immediate
recognition of professional qualifications obtained in the United
Kingdom as soon as possible. when the holders of these activities carry
on their activity in France on March 30, 2019, without a probationary
examination. To that end, the committee adopted amendment COM-17 of its
rapporteur specifying the wording of Article 1 (3). In line with the desire shown
by the Government to increase the attractiveness of the French territory, this
amendment makes it possible to immediately recognize the professional
qualifications obtained in Great Britain by employees called, after March 30,
2019, to exercise a professional activity. in companies established in the
United Kingdom on the date of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the
European Union having chosen to deploy in France after it.

4 ° - Situation of public servants


The Government would be empowered by orders to draw the consequences
of a Brexit without agreement on the "situation of the British civil servants and
trainees in the civil service".

1.4.1. The current situation


Like all European citizens, British nationals may become, since 1991, civil
servants in the French administration. This is a Community requirement,
stemming from Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU) as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union
(CJEU) 2. 1 Law No. 91-715 of 26 July 1991 on various provisions relating to
the civil service. This right has also been extended to nationals of the States
of the European Economic Area, namely Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein
(Law No. 96-1093 of 16 December 1996 on employment in the public service
and various statutory measures). 2 Court of Justice of the European Union,
17 December 1980, Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
Belgium, Case No. 149/79. CONSID Guaranteed by Article 5 bis of the Le
Pors Act of 13 July 19831, this right excludes "jobs of sovereignty". Thus
European citizens are not allowed to exercise a job whose attributions: - are
not separable from the exercise of sovereignty; - or involve a direct or indirect
participation in the exercise of prerogatives of public authority of the State or
other public authorities. For example, British nationals do not carry out
"sovereign" missions to the Ministries of Defence, Budget, Economy and
Finance, Justice and Foreign Affairs. On the other hand, they have access to
other public service jobs: nurses, teacher-researchers, territorial
psychologists, hospital directors, etc. Like the French, the British must meet
certain criteria to join the civil service: to enjoy their civil rights, not to have
been subjected to a "conviction incompatible with the performance of their
duties" and to be declared physically fit. They enter the French public service
by competition or detachment. The quality of contract: a right open to any
foreigner in a regular situation British nationals can also be recruited in
France as contract employees of the public service, excluding jobs of
sovereignty. This right is open to all foreigners in a regular situation, not only
to European citizens

4. 1.4.2. The Brexit stakes


According to the impact study, 5,115 Britons work for French
administrations, including 3,400 contractors and 1,715 holders5. The
state civil service is the main pool, with a total of 4,215 British agents.
These are, most often, foreign language teachers. 1 Law No. 83-634 on
the rights and obligations of civil servants. 2 Conseil d'État, 31 January 2002,
Opinion No. 366 313. 3 See, for the example of hospital directors, the
following judgment: Conseil d'État, 16 March 2005, Burbaud, case No.
268718. 4 Article 3-1 of Decree No 86-83 of 17 January 1986 on the general
provisions applicable to contractual agents of the State taken for the
application of Article 7 of Law No 84-16 of 11 January 1984 laying down
statutory provisions relating to the public service of the State. 5 Estimate
based on a survey conducted between 2013 and 2017.
Number of British agents in France Officials Contract Agents TOTAL
Public Service of the State (FPE) 1 438 2 777 4 215 Territorial public
service 0 464 464 Public hospital service 277 159 436 Total public
service 1 715 3 400 5 115 Source: Special Commission, based on the
impact study In addition, about 1 700 Britons are officials of the
European Union. Their status depends solely on Community law, not on
Member States; therefore, it is not mentioned in this bill. During her
hearing before your committee, Mrs Nathalie Loiseau, Minister for Europe
and Foreign Affairs, in charge of European Affairs, confirmed that the
Commission was planning to keep these European agents, while
suppressing the recruitment of new British nationals.

1.4.3. The answers envisaged by France After Brexit,


The United Kingdom will be considered as a third State to the European
Union. In the absence of an agreement, its nationals may still be
recruited on French soil as public-law contractors but not as public
servants (flows). The most complex situation concerns the 1,715
Britons who are currently employed in the public service of the state
and, more marginally, in the public hospital (stock). No longer fulfilling
the nationality requirement of Article 5 bis of the Le Pors Act of 13 July
1983, they will be dismissed ex officio from 29 March 2019 and will lose
their status as civil servants. Such a cancellation of the framework
already exists for officials who lose French nationality or who are
deprived of their rights. Regulation of 1962 laying down the Staff
Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants
of the European Economic Community and the European Community of
atomic energy. Examination of civic articles: provided for in article 24 of the
law "Le Pors", it is implemented under the control of the judge. The public
employer is also in bounded jurisdiction: he has the obligation to find that his
agent no longer meets the conditions of access to the public service and must
be removed from the service; unlike disciplinary measures, no adversarial
procedure is necessary. Unintentionally deprived of employment, the agent
can claim a replacement income (return to work allowance, ARE), while
waiting for a professional retraining. In this context, the Government asks
to be empowered to legislate by order to draw the consequences of a
Brexit without agreement on the situation of staff members and trainees
of British nationality. It would be a question of organising, if necessary,
their recruitment as contractors of public right and to define the
possible rules of resumption of their seniority. As the impact assessment
points out, "these provisions are of a legislative nature inasmuch as, in
accordance with Article 34 of the Constitution, the provisions relating to
fundamental guarantees granted to civil and military officials fall within the
scope of the law. of State ".
5 ° - Social rights and social benefits Article 1 (5) of the draft law deals with
the issue of social security coverage for British nationals living in France.

1.5.1. Existing law British citizens living in France are covered by two
European regulations of 2004 and 2009 on social protection, coordinating
social security schemes4. Responding to the principle of non-discrimination
between European citizens, these coordination rules cover: - sickness,
maternity and paternity benefits; 1 Council of State, 16 November 1983,
Commune of Gemenos, Case No. 24484. 2 Council of State, 22 November
1995, Gamblin, Case No. 139328. Conversely, in case of Brexit with
agreement, the British officials would remain in office at least until the
end of the transitional period, ie until 31 December 2020. 4 Regulation
(EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and
Regulation (EC) ) No 987/2009 Laying down detailed rules for the application
of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. old-age pensions and early retirement
benefits as well as invalidity benefits; - survivors' benefits and death grants; -
unemployment benefits; - family benefits; - benefits in the event of accidents
at work and occupational diseases. According to the regulations, every
European citizen belongs to the social security system of only one Member
State at a time, so that he has to pay contributions only in one country. Where
the person is eligible to receive benefits, it is in the Member State in which he
pays his contributions (principle of uniqueness). In addition, all European
citizens have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as
nationals of the Member State in which they are insured (principle of equal
treatment). When a person applies for a benefit, the previous periods during
which he was insured, worked or resided in another Member State shall be
taken into account if necessary, in particular to establish that the person was
insured for the minimum period required by national law to receive a benefit
(totalisation principle). Finally, where a person is entitled to receive a cash
benefit from a Member State, he can usually obtain it even if he lives in
another Member State (principle of export). With regard to unemployment,
European law provides for the portability of rights. Before leaving his State of
origin, any citizen can request the portable document U1 "Periods to be taken
into account for the granting of unemployment benefits" to the local
employment services. If, after a return to work in France, he finds himself in a
situation of involuntary unemployment, he may, when registering as a
jobseeker, submit this document to the services of the Agence Pôle Emploi
which, taking into account of the totalization of the periods of employment
completed in the two States, will determine whether it also fulfills all the other
conditions provided for by French legislation to give entitlement to
compensation.
1.5.2. The consequences of a withdrawal without agreement
In the event of withdrawal without agreement, access to social security
coverage for British nationals living in the territory would no longer be
governed by European law.
The exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union without an
agreement would imply that every British national has a residence
permit, a professional activity and a stable residence in order to be
affiliated to the scheme. French social security, as an expatriate. British
nationals could therefore have access to Universal Health Protection
(PUMa). If they did not have a job but reside in a stable and regular way
in France (with a residence permit), British nationals could, after a
period of 3 months, ask the Primary Health Insurance Fund of the place
of residence to be affiliated with the PUMa on residency criteria. This
fund would examine whether the conditions are met to benefit from the
assumption of health care costs for the residence. Affiliation is free or
expensive depending on resources. With regard to the beneficiaries, the
Health Insurance Fund indicates the terms and conditions of their assumption
of responsibility according to the French legislation. In case of withdrawal
without agreement, a British national should, in addition, to be registered on
the lists of job-seekers and to benefit from an unemployment allowance, to
hold a valid residence permit (resident card, card of stay of competence and
talents, temporary residence permit, residence visas of more than three
months) or of a provisional certificate of work when the employment contract
concluded with an employer established in France, was broken before its
term, because employer, for a reason attributable to it or for force majeure1.
According to the Government's impact study, only 458 employment center
beneficiaries have opened rights in the next to last activity in the United
Kingdom, ie 6% of the requests relating to past activity within the United
Kingdom. a country of the European Union or the European Economic Area.
With regard to social minima, a third-country national must have five years of
uninterrupted residence in France under cover of a residence permit
authorizing him to work in order to benefit from an allowance2, as against
three months for a national of the European Union or the European Economic
Area. The number of UK households benefiting from Social Work Income is
now estimated at 3,020 by the Government in its impact study.

1.5.3. The response proposed by the Government


As for the right of residence and employment, the Government wishes
to avoid a sudden break on 30 March 2019. One of the questions
concerns the possibility for recipients to continue to receive their
benefits at the end of the year. day after the effective exit of the United
Kingdom from the European Union and remain affine to the social
security system. Article 1 (5) must therefore make it possible to adopt by 1
Article R2221-48 of the Labor Code. 2 Articles L.262-4 2 °, the Code of Social
Action and L. 842-2 2 ° of the Social Security Code. - 46 - necessary
measures concerning social rights and social benefits for British nationals
living in France on the eve of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom. The
intention is laudable. The financial dimension, however, should not be
overlooked. European law provides for a reimbursement to the French
schemes by the United Kingdom of care expenses of British nationals
as long as they are still affiliated to the British system. This
reimbursement concerns "unannounced" care as well as the care of
pensioners receiving a British pension1. The Center for European and
International Social Security Liaisons estimates in its 2017 annual
report to 124 million euros the amount of care expenses and expenses
related to occupational diseases and accidents paid by the British
system to French social security schemes (255 million in 2016). In the
European Union and the European Economic Area, the United Kingdom
was the largest creditor in France in 2017 (22.90% of all
reimbursements). By way of comparison, France reimbursed the British
National Health Service 6 million euros in 2017 for health expenses
incurred by affiliates of the French schemes based in the United
Kingdom (1.02 million euros in 2016) . The United Kingdom also pays
the amounts corresponding to the acquired pension rights to the UK
pension scheme. They may be British nationals, but also French
nationals or nationals of other countries who have acquired pension
rights in the UK system. According to the Center for European and
International Social Security Liaisons, these payments amounted to €
383 million in 2017, with 66,797 beneficiaries concerned. Conversely,
10,226 pensioners who contributed to a French regime settled in the
United Kingdom gave rise to a repayment to the British system of
approximately 64 million euros. Withdrawal without agreement
presupposes a period of legal vacuum pending the signature of a
bilateral cooperation agreement as set up with third countries to the
European Union and the European Economic Area. This legal void is not
without risk on the financing of our social schemes. The sums which
would no longer be paid by France are, in fact, far from reaching the amount
of the British claims. The issue is hardly addressed in the impact study. Your
draftsman believes, on the other hand, that the orders must lead to the
extension of the compensation mechanism provided until the date of
withdrawal by European law. Pensioners receiving a British pension and
a French pension are covered by the French scheme. The so-called
"programmed" care during a temporary stay in France are also concerned.
More generally, after withdrawal, the Government will have to enter into
negotiations with the British authorities with a view to adopting a bilateral
agreement for the coordination of social security schemes. In the absence of
agreement, no entitlement to sickness and maternity insurance benefits is
thus available for the activity of the worker in France for the family remaining
in the United Kingdom. British nationals will also not be entitled to sickness
and maternity benefits on paid leave in the United Kingdom, to
convalescence or birth, or to family benefits. If family members continue to
reside in the United Kingdom, they should contact the health insurance
agency they were previously insured to see what their potential rights are
under UK law. Such an agreement would undoubtedly strengthen the
attractiveness of French territory, pursued by the Government. For the sake
of consistency with Article 1 (2) and (3), your Special Committee has adopted
amendment COM-18 of its rapporteur to facilitate access to French social
protection for employees who are required to pursue a professional activity. in
companies established in the United Kingdom on the date of the withdrawal
of the United Kingdom from the European Union having chosen to deploy in
France after it.

6 ° - Controls on goods and passengers, veterinary and phytosanitary


controls
1.6.1. The current situation
Trade between France and the United Kingdom is very important.
Indeed, our trade surplus with this country amounted to 11.6 billion
euros in 2016, including 2.5 billion euros for agri-food and agricultural
products. The United Kingdom is our third agrifood customer and our
second largest supplier of fish products, some of which is processed in
the Pas-de-Calais industries. Our exports to the United Kingdom
represent 3% of our gross domestic product (GDP); France is therefore
less exposed than some of its neighbors to the risks inherent in Brexit,
such as Germany (4% of its GDP), Belgium (7% of its GDP) and the
Netherlands (8% of its GDP). . The free movement of goods is one of the
'four freedoms' of the single market. As a result, there is currently no
control over imports and exports to or from the United Kingdom. Trade
in goods is subject only to monthly goods exchange declarations which are
intended to establish external trade statistics and to permit tax surveillance
relating to the exchange of goods. collection of VAT. With regard to passenger
screening, they are now carried out on both sides of the border, the United
Kingdom not belonging to the Schengen area.

1.6.2. The stakes in France


The preparation of control points and dedicated personnel After the
Brexit, controls will have to be re-established at the Union's borders on
goods, but also on live animals, plants and animal products. animal and
vegetable origin from the United Kingdom to prevent any risk of
contamination. In the absence of an exit agreement, the controls will be
effective as of March 30 and carried out in the country of destination,
that is to say in France with regard to imports. To do this, new
infrastructures and additional human resources will be needed: -
spaces will have to be set up for customs formalities since all the goods
transported from or to the United Kingdom will have to be the subject of
formalities of customs clearance or transit (transit regime); -
installations dedicated to sanitary and phytosanitary controls ("border
inspection posts") will have to be adapted or even created and then
approved by the European Commission, which requires a minimum
period of time estimated at 18 months1; - additional jobs will have to be
created to ensure these new missions2; to this end, recruitment
campaigns will have to be launched, to which will be added training
periods, difficult to compress, for recruited staff; - finally, enhanced IT
resources (implementation of new information systems) will be
required.
The manager of the port of Dunkirk estimates the total cost of the
development to 25 million euros for its only port, without this cost was
anticipated in its multi-year investment plan. 1 A single point of import control
exists on the harbor front of the Hauts-de-France, in Dunkerque, where
checks are carried out by appointment, which can last up to 40 minutes. 2
The Ministry of Public Accounts and Action has announced the recruitment of
700 customs officers in the period 2018-2020 (350 are enrolled in program
302 "Facilitation and security of trade" of the PLF 2019), part of which will be
contractualised to allow faster recruitment. The Ministry of Agriculture and
Food, meanwhile, has registered the creation of 40 FTEs in PLF 2019
(program 206 "Food Safety and Quality of Food"). In addition, port and
economic actors in the Hauts-de-France are concerned that their British
partners are asking for the implementation of customs controls
juxtaposed on the French sides, as is already the case for the control of
people under the Touquet agreements. If this were the case, the cost of
adaptations could be based on the French side. In the absence of an
agreement, the British will then be regarded as third-country nationals
subject to a visa, as well as French nationals traveling to the United
Kingdom. Passengers using the Eurostar, among others, will have to
undergo longer checks, while the traffic should increase by half by 2030
according to the president of the SNCF. To this end, extension work on
the cross-Channel terminal is planned at Gare du Nord, but delivery is
not expected until June 2023. Four million Britons visit France each
year; if all these tourists had to obtain a visa to go to France, the
consulates would then face a doubling of the number of requests, in a
particularly constrained budgetary context for the Quai d'Orsay. In
addition, the Ministry of the Interior has not planned to increase the
police force at the borders in view of Brexit1, while additional resources
will be needed to cope with the flow of passengers - the prefect of the
Hauts- de-France estimating this need at 250 additional FTEs for its region
alone. (2) The central question of the durability of flows Economic players are
concerned that customs, veterinary, phytosanitary and passenger controls will
affect the fluidity of cross-Channel trade and, consequently, the
competitiveness of French port and logistics infrastructures in favor of ports.
Dutch and Belgian, whose controls are perceived as more "flexible".
Therefore, they question the ability of the administration to be able to carry
out controls without discontinuity - that is to say, including at night and on
weekends - in view of the additional costs that such an operation would
generate for the 'State. Questioned on this point by your rapporteur, the
Minister of Action and Public Accounts states that the time slots of customs
officers will be extended accordingly. The task force set up by the Regional
Council of Hauts-de-France estimates that an increase in control time of 2
minutes at entry points2 (Channel Tunnel, Calais port) 1 Program 176
"National Police" of the PLF 2019. 2 In case of "hard Brexit", the goods
imported in France will have to undergo four customs formalities
instead of only one currently, which will represent a time of
immobilisation of 2 minutes by truck. would result in a 28-kilometer
traffic jam on the roads, which could also reinforce atmospheric
pollution - which is already very important on the coast - and the
migratory risk - It would be easier for migrants to board trucks to the
United Kingdom, as not all of them are equipped with anti-intrusion
devices. However, every year, 32 million people and 4.2 million trucks
use the Channel Tunnel - through which 25% of goods flows between
the United Kingdom and the European continent transit -, as well as the
ports of Calais. and Dunkirk. In the absence of agreement, the number
of batches controlled annually in these two ports could reach nearly
one million. (3) Maintaining fair competition The United Kingdom wants to
remain in the customs union while enjoying commercial policy autonomy,
which would allow it to apply its own tariffs. If its tariffs were lower than those
applied within the Union, this would pose a major risk of diversion of trade
flows to the detriment of our companies. In addition, the European Union
would lose control over the collection of tax revenues1. In terms of regulation,
in order to maintain access to the internal market, the British want to be in line
with most European standards for goods, while retaining the possibility to
diverge in other areas (services, labor, capital, standards environmental).
These proposals, which contradict the principles of indivisibility of the four
freedoms and the integrity of the internal market, are considered inadmissible
by the European Union: they would offer a major competitive advantage to
British companies which could thus preserve their cost structures by
dumping. France will also have to ensure that there is no competition
between the customs administrations of the Member States to attract
customs clearing operations of companies in their respective territories. In
order to safeguard our interests in this area, customs controls will need to be
further harmonized. 1 Tariffs for the European budget and VAT revenues for
the Member States. (4) Supporting companies The introduction of sanitary
and phytosanitary controls (see above) will also concern exports to the United
Kingdom. As such, a health certification system for animals, plants, animal
and vegetable products must be put in place. In addition, many French
companies trading with the United Kingdom, will have to modify their
procedures because of Brexit, especially with regard to customs formalities.
Up to now, these companies only carried out intra-Community trade; in the
Hauts-de-France region, more than 5,500 local businesses making purchases
across the Channel are involved, and nearly 1,550 companies making sales
in this country. In the absence of predictability related to UK exit
arrangements, these companies can not anticipate the necessary
recruitments and training. Indeed, these adaptations are not without financial
impact for them, especially as these companies will have, in case of "hard
Brexit", to pay customs duties and taxes. Finally, Brexit questions the future of
our direct trade with Ireland, which is currently mainly supplied via its British
neighbour.

1.6.3. The envisaged solutions


In order to preserve the fluidity of the cross-Channel exchanges, and
thus the attractiveness of the French ports, the task force set up in the
Hauts-de-France: - envisages a reduction of the physical controls on the
basis of a risk analysis1 , which could otherwise be carried in a buffer
zone at the rear of the platforms; - asked the European Commission to
set up, during the transitional period, a cross-border fastpass2, that is
to say dematerialisation of the procedures and automated data control
by anticipation, without prejudice to the possibility of carrying out
physical checks at the entrance (security, fight against fraud, etc.).
Heard by your rapporteur, transport professionals have been discussing
with the British customs and tax authorities for several months on the
implementation of a pre-declaration solution. 1 Article L. 236-4 of the
Rural Code and Maritime Fisheries provides that veterinary checks are "as
the case may be, systematic or not". Article L. 251-12 of the same code
specifies that plants are subject to phytosanitary control "as soon as they are
likely to be contaminated by a harmful organism". 2 Funded from European
funds, this solution has been successfully tested at Vienna airport and at the
port of Piraeus for the control of people. The region is asking for its extension
to the control of goods. French shipowners also advocate the
dematerialisation of customs declarations. As such, they call for the
maintenance of the Import Control System (ICS), which provides for the filing
of an Entry Summary Declaration (ENS) with the customs authorities at the
first point of destination of the goods. This declaration, completed in advance
and online, is then subject to a risk analysis for safety and security purposes
that may lead to a ban on loading or customs controls. During the transport of
goods, the only visible controls are, during the crossing or in the transit port,
to scan the barcodes of the trucks or containers in which they are stored. This
regime already exists for trade between mainland Spain and the Canary
Islands, and has proven its effectiveness. With this in mind, setting up a
single Cargo Community System (CCS) for all French ports or, at the very
least, interoperable and coherent CSS would be very useful. The
dematerialisation path is one of the avenues envisaged by the customs
administration, which, moreover, wishes to equip itself with scanners to
control the flow of goods using the Channel Tunnel, while the trains are
running1. Another solution would be to invite companies to apply for the
status of Authorised Economic Operator (AEO), an internationally recognised
European Customs Trust Mark, which simplifies and secures international
trade. An agreement on mutual recognition of the OAS status of British and
European companies will however be necessary. To date, about 1,600 French
companies have this status, and some 600 British companies only. Although
free of charge, the process of obtaining it assumes costs incurred, especially
in terms of jobs essential to the audit. With regard to sanitary and
phytosanitary controls, they could be avoided if an equivalence between UK
and European regulations was recognised, or better, if the United Kingdom
aligned its regulation with that of the Union. Pending the completion of the
work to adjust the inspection posts (see above), the best solution would be
not to make the controls mandatory once the goods are introduced into the
national territory, and above all, be able to carry them out of border inspection
posts, sometimes a few kilometres from ports. In this respect, a derogation
from the European Union is required as well as a legislative provision to
comply with it. Heard by the special commission, the Minister for European
Affairs said that France had entered into discussion with the Union on this
point. The special commission, however, calls the 1 Such a device would
make it possible to control the contents of a train traveling at a speed of 30
km / h. The nuclear safety agency must, however, give its authorisation
before it is implemented. 2 A form of mutual recognition exists with some third
countries, such as Switzerland. Government to greater vigilance in this area;
in fact, to ensure all these new monitoring missions, the staff of the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food should increase by only 40 full-time equivalents. This
number seems to be low, if not insufficient, given the importance of the health
risks incurred, which can be explained, on the one hand, by far-distant
foodstuffs (in particular from the Commonwealth countries, not subject to
European standards) which pass through by the United Kingdom, and
secondly by the level of food safety (especially epidemio surveillance) which
has deteriorated considerably over time in the country. Your rapporteur also
draws the Government's attention to the risk of a break in the supply of
medicines that could result in an exit without agreement, and its health
consequences. A recent Senate report1 indicates that a hard Brexit could
seriously affect the distribution on the European continent of 108 drugs
marketed by UK-based laboratories that have not undertaken a marketing
authorisation transfer process. (AMM) to an operator established within the
Union. To avoid any shortage on the British island, Theresa May's
government has called on the pharmaceutical industry to stockpile drugs. In
order to preserve the health of our fellow citizens, the Government could
consider, in the ordinances, a derogation to exclude pharmaceuticals from the
scope of goods controls - or at least to relax them. Finally, support for small
and medium-sized businesses trading with the United Kingdom, and little
knowledge of the formalities required by a third country, is to be expected. In
the Netherlands, the MKB Nederland (employers' organization) and the
Ministry of the Economy have launched the "Brexit buddies" program which
will enable the 35 000 SMEs facing the problem to be accompanied by the
big companies of the country. In France, 42 economic action centers are
responsible for providing free advice to companies in their region in their
international trade operations, and sensitization meetings, led by the prefects
and Direccte, will take place. 1 Information Report No. 737 (2017-2018) by
Mr. Jean-Pierre Decool, Senator, on behalf of the fact-finding mission on the
shortage of drugs and vaccines. -

7 ° - Road transport operations for goods or persons The draft law


empowers the Government to draw the consequences of a Brexit without
agreement on the implementation of road transport operations by persons
established in the United Kingdom.

1.7.1. The law in force International road transport of goods and


passengers is governed by European Union law, in particular Regulations
Nos. 1071/20091, 1072/20092 and 1073/20093 of 21 October 2009. The
Commission has elsewhere recently proposed changes to the rules
applicable in this sector, as part of the "mobility package I", currently under
negotiation. (a) Access to the profession Regulation No 1071/2009 governs
access to the occupation of road transport operator and the exercise of that
profession. That regulation provides, inter alia, that undertakings which
pursue the occupation of road transport operator are established in a stable
and effective manner in a Member State and that they have demonstrated
their good repute, financial capacity and professional capacity. Each of these
companies must designate a transport manager who is a natural person, who
is himself resident in the European Union and has the required professional
capacity. (b) Access to the road haulage market In application of Regulation
(EC) No 1072/2009, international goods transport is liberalised on the territory
of the European Union. In order to carry out an international transport of
goods within the Union, a carrier must hold a Community license issued by a
Member State for a maximum of ten years renewable. This license must be
accompanied, if the driver is a national of a third country, who is not a long-
term resident in the Union 1 Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules
on the conditions to be complied with to exercise the profession of road
transport operator. 2 Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for
access to the international road haulage market. 3 Regulation (EC) No
1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009
establishing common rules for access to the international market in coach
and bus transport services. EUROPEAN EXAMINATION - 55 - a driver
attestation, also issued by the competent authority of the country of
establishment within the Union. Cabotage transport is authorized in the
European Union only temporarily, after having carried out international
transport, within a limit of three cabotage operations in the host country within
seven days. Within this period carriers may carry out some or all of the three
cabotage operations authorised in any Member State, provided that they are
limited to cabotage transport by Member State within three days of empty
entry. territory of that Member State. (c) Access to the passenger road
transport market In application of Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009,
international passenger transport is also liberalized and subject to the
issuance by the competent authorities of the State of establishment to the
within the Union of a Community license for a period of ten years renewable.
Regular services shall be subject to an authorization issued for a maximum of
5 years, in agreement with the competent authorities of all the countries of the
European Union on whose territory passengers are embarked or
disembarked. Cabotage transport is allowed for national road passenger
transport services provided on a temporary basis by a carrier in a host EU
country and for the loading or unloading of passengers in the same country of
the EU. EU within the framework of a regular international service, provided
that cabotage is not the main purpose of the service. In addition, the Interbus
Agreement of 3 October 2002 governs the occasional international carriage of
passengers by coach and bus between the European Union and its eastern
neighbors (today Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Moldova,
Montenegro, Turkey and, since 2013, Ukraine). This agreement succeeded
the Asor agreement of 1982 which is still in force with Andorra. (d) The other
rules European Union law lays down, moreover: - rules concerning the
organization of working time of drivers (Directive of 11 March 20022,
Regulation of 15 March 20061 laying down 1 For the purposes of Directive
Council Directive 2003/109 / EC of 25 November 2003 on the status of third-
country nationals who are long-term residents 2 Directive 2002/15 / EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the
organization of the work of persons performing mobile road transport
activities in particular common rules for driver's driving and rest periods) and
control devices (tachographs2 ). - technical safety requirements: authorized
dimensions and maximum weights for trucks, buses and coaches, technical
controls, transport of dangerous goods ...

1.7.2. The Brexit stakes As of March 29, 2019, the United Kingdom
becoming a third country, an agreement with this country will be necessary to
ensure the continuity of the flows of road transport of goods or persons. Such
an agreement could be concluded either by France or by the European
Union. For example, there is a bilateral agreement between the European
Community and the Swiss Confederation on the carriage of goods and
passengers by rail and road signed on 21 June 1999, which specifies the
conditions for issuing the authorisations required for the operation such
services between the countries concerned. In the absence of an agreement
with the European Union, certificates, licenses and certificates issued in the
United Kingdom will no longer be valid in the European Union at 27, which
will create a legal vacuum. In particular: - companies established in the
United Kingdom, as well as the transport managers who reside there, will no
longer fulfil the residency requirement which is one of the conditions of
access to the exercise of the profession of road transport operator in the
United Kingdom. The union ; - Certificates of professional competence issued
by the United Kingdom will no longer be recognised; - British long-term non-
resident drivers in the European Union, working for a Union carrier, must hold
a driver attestation issued in the Member State of establishment of the carrier;
- Community licenses and driver certificates, allowing access to the market
for the carriage of goods within the Union, issued by the United Kingdom
authorities, will no longer be recognised; - Community licenses and
authorisations for regular services issued by the United Kingdom for access
to the passenger transport market in the Union will no longer be valid. 1
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain provisions of social
legislation in the field of road transport. 2 Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs
in road transport. A Brexit without agreement would, moreover, have the
effect of removing the United Kingdom from the Interbus Agreement and the
existing agreements between the European Union and the Swiss
Confederation. However, certain situations could be settled in the context of
international law provisions, which are less detailed than European Union law,
in particular the system of multilateral quota for transport licenses introduced
on 1 January 1974 by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport.
(ECMT), today known as the International Transport Forum (ITF). Created in
2006, the International Transport Forum comprises 59 Member States,
including France and the United Kingdom. These provisions of international
law are, however, not sufficient to ensure the continuity of transport flows
between the EU 27 and the United Kingdom. They do not cover all the
strands currently covered by European Union law and do not allow in
particular cabotage. At 31 December 2017, 298 512 road hauliers held a
Community license for the carriage of goods in the European Union, of which
9 949 were established in the United Kingdom. In 2017, merchandise trade
between France and the United Kingdom accounted for 3.6 million trucks by
sea and 1.6 million trucks by rail. As of 1 August 2018, 104 regular passenger
service authorisations between the United Kingdom and the European Union,
and 1 authorisation for services between the United Kingdom and Ukraine,
were in force. Of these, 38 relate specifically to services between France and
the United Kingdom, 29 of which are issued by the French authorities. The
latter are divided between the Eurolines, Ouibus and Flixbus companies.

1.7.3. The envisaged answer


In the absence of agreement, it is a question of being able to take
unilateral measures in order to avoid any interruption of the road flows
between France and the United Kingdom. The intention of the
Government is to unilaterally recognise in France for a temporary
period, on condition of reciprocity, the validity of the certificates and
authorisations enjoyed by companies established in the United
Kingdom, as well as the professional titles issued in the United
Kingdom, to enable the carrying out of road transport operations of
goods and persons by British carriers. It would be a question of
prolonging at least temporarily the conditions under which these
companies operate on the French territory, in order to avoid any sudden
interruption of flows to France or in transit on the territory of France. -
Such provisions would only be taken in the absence of measures at
Union level. The bill provides guarantees of reciprocity, starting from a
date to be fixed. An agreement with the European Union, or failing that, a
bilateral agreement with France will indeed be necessary, in order to ensure
that European Union carriers, and in particular French carriers operating in
the United Kingdom, enjoy the same advantages as France. those granted in
the territory of the Union to British carriers. In the event of non-reciprocity, the
measures taken under this Bill will cease to have effect. This condition of
reciprocity is clearly necessary because France has important economic
interests in the transport of goods on British soil, including in the form of
cabotage. Pending an agreement establishing a new framework for road
transport operations between the EU 27 and the United Kingdom, and in
particular between France and the United Kingdom, your Special Committee
approves the Government's willingness to to limit the effects of Brexit, if
necessary, by unilateral measures against British carriers, in order to allow
the continuity of trade between France and the United Kingdom, including in
transit. This objective covers indeed a major economic stake. Your committee
has adopted the rapporteur's amendment COM-20 and Article 1 as amended.
Article 2 The purpose of Article 2 of the draft law is to empower the
Government to legislate by order to draw the consequences of a Brexit
without the agreement of the French resident or working in the United
Kingdom. This empowerment would focus on five clearly defined themes:
social rights, professional qualifications, military equipment licenses,
interbank settlement systems, passenger and goods flows. The orders are
intended "in particular" (aims) to: - preserve the national interests of France; -
deal with the situation of French nationals and "other persons to whom Union
law prohibits different treatment". On the initiative of its rapporteur, your
committee has specified these purposes, in accordance with the case-law of
the Constitutional Council (amendment COM-13). Similarly, it recalled that all
derogations taken by ordinances would be applicable until the entry into force
of treaties or bilateral agreements between France and the United Kingdom,
which will define the new framework of relations between both states. As with
article 1, the Government would have twelve months from the publication of
the law to make the orders. 1 ° - Social rights

Article 2 1 ° of the draft authorization law provides for the taking into
account periods of activity of French nationals in the United Kingdom
before the withdrawal in the calculation of unemployment insurance and
benefits contributory (old age, disability, occupational accident and
occupational illness). The number of French residents in the United
Kingdom is estimated at 300,000.

2.1.1. Existing law


French nationals living in the United Kingdom are currently covered, in
the field of social security, by two European regulations of 2004 and
2009, coordinating social security schemes1 (see below). Responding
to the principle of non-discrimination between European citizens, these
coordination rules include: - unemployment benefits; - old-age pensions
and pre-retirement benefits as well as invalidity benefits; - benefits in
the event of accidents at work and occupational diseases. French
nationals leaving the United Kingdom before the withdrawal of the latter
can thus see their rights open when they rework at least one day in
France. British periods are then taken into account in the amount of the
benefit paid.

2.1.2. Consequences of a withdrawal without agreement


The withdrawal of the United Kingdom implies that the European coordination
regulations cease to apply to French nationals working there on the date of
withdrawal. Therefore, in case of return to France and resumption of activity,
the principles of aggregation and portability of rights will cease to apply. In
case of payment of a benefit, the calculation thereof will not take into account
the British periods. French law provides several solutions for unemployment
insurance for expatriate employees in a country not covered by European
regulations.
- For expatriate or seconded employees in a country outside the European
Union, European Economic Area or Switzerland, since they are hired by a
company established on French territory, the employer is obliged, since 1
July 2014, to affiliate to the unemployment insurance scheme (Article L.
5422-13 of the Labor Code); - For other expatriate employees, it is up to
the companies to join them to the unemployment insurance scheme.
Employees can also join voluntarily, paying the employer's share. In the
absence of affiliation, periods of employment are not taken into account. 1
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security
systems and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 laying down detailed rules for
the application of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. REVIEW OF ARTICLES -
-
- 2.1.3. The response proposed by the Government
-
- The Government indicates in the draft law that it wishes to take into
account, for the opening and determination of social rights, periods of
insurance, activities or professional training carried out or carried out in the
United Kingdom at the date of withdrawal. It remains to determine the
terms of affiliation for French nationals employed in the United Kingdom in
post after the withdrawal. The Government is not putting forward any track
in this regard. The day after the withdrawal, the United Kingdom becoming
a third State, it is perfectly conceivable that Article L. 5422-13 of the Labor
Code applies to employees of a company established in France and
expatriated or seconded UK.
-
- 2 ° - Professional qualifications
-
- 2.2.1. Existing law
- French nationals or those of other countries having acquired a professional
qualification are currently covered by the Directive on the recognition of
professional qualifications adopted in 20051 and amended in 20132 (see
below).
-
- 2.2.2. Consequences of withdrawal
- without agreement In the event of withdrawal without agreement, the
principle of recognition of professional qualifications obtained in the United
Kingdom would no longer be guaranteed.
-
- 2.2.3. The Government's proposals
- As regards social protection, the Government intends to guarantee the
interests of French nationals and other persons to whom Union law
prohibits different treatment. In these circumstances, it intends to promote
the recognition of diplomas and professional qualifications acquired or in
the course of acquisition at the date of withdrawal. The impact assessment
indicates that today there is no precise estimate of the number of
professionals with a qualification obtained from the 1 Directive 2005/36 /
EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on
the the recognition of professional qualifications. 2 Directive 2013/55 / EU
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013
amending Directive 2005/36 / EC on the recognition of professional
qualifications.
- The number of European students in the United Kingdom registered under
Erasmus + was set at more than 31 000 for the 2015-2016 school year.
France would have the highest student quota (4,355 students). It is also
possible to question the consideration of complementary pathways at the
end of a degree and validation in progress. The drafting of the text
assumes that, within the framework of a Bachelor-Master-Doctorate
program, only the diploma obtained and the one currently being acquired
will be recognised, at the risk of calling into question the entire training
project. A bachelor's student would not see his master's degree and then
his doctorate recognized. Under these circumstances, your committee
has expressed the wish that the ordinances provide for the
integration of additional diplomas and professional qualifications,
even if the training starts after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom
from the European Union (amendment COM-19 of the rapporteur).
-
- 3 ° - Transfers of defence-related products and space materials The
draft law empowers the government to draw the consequences of a Brexit
without agreement on transfers of defense-related products and space
materials.
-
- 2.3.1. Current law
- The trade of war materials, weapons and ammunition is governed by
articles L. 2335-1 and following of the code of defence. With regard to
international trade in these products, the Defence Code distinguishes two
legal regimes: that of transfers of equipment within the European Union,
and that of imports and exports outside the territory of the European Union.
Transfers of defence-related products within the European Union are
governed by Directive 2009/43 / EC of 6 May 2009. In application of this
Directive, Article L. 2335-9 of the Defence Code provides that the transfer
of defence-related products from France to other Member States is subject
to prior authorisation. This authorisation is called a transfer license. Article
L. 2335-10 of the code distinguishes: - General transfer licenses (taken by
order): there are 10, allowing the transfer of certain products on simple
declaration and in the absence of opposition of the administration; Global
transfer licenses, authorising a supplier to transfer specific products to one
or more identified recipients; - Individual transfer licenses authorising a
supplier wishing to make a single transfer of goods to a single Member
State of the Union. In addition, the transfer of space material made by
France to other EU Member States is subject to a specific authorisation,
referred to as a transfer authorisation, provided for by Article L. 2335-18 of
the Defence Code. As regards chemicals, they fall under the same system
since Article L. 2342-8 of the Defence Code which concerns them refers to
the regime of the transfer authorisation provided for in Articles L. 2335-9
and L. 2335. - 10 of the code of defence. Exports of defence-related
products to a third State are subject to a separate authorisation system
(Articles L. 2335-2 and following of the Defence Code), distinguishing, in a
symmetrical manner: exporting, global export licenses and individual
export licenses. The scope of this regime includes space materials. The
Defence Code also contains provisions relating to the transfer of defence-
related products from another Member State, as well as provisions on the
authorisation to import such products from a Member State. Third State.
-
- 2.3.2. The Brexit stakes
- According to the information provided to your rapporteur, there are
currently 1508 individual or global transfer licenses to the United
Kingdom, for a maximum authorised value of 39.9 billion euros. The
rate of realisation between license and contract is usually between
10% and 15%. For the period 2008-2017, 2 billion euros of orders were
placed and 1.3 billion euros were made. These transfers concern both
the aviation sector (outsourcing of aircraft construction) and the naval
sector (supply chain of British submarines, frigates), land and space. With
regard to the specific case of MBDA, the organisation of this undertaking
derives from the agreement between France and the United Kingdom,
concerning the centres of excellence implemented as part of the strategy
of rationalisation of the sector of the systems of missiles, signed in Paris on
September 24, 2015 and approved by Law No. 2016-1324 of October 7,
2016. This organisation is not intended to be affected by Brexit. However,
future exchanges between MBDA entities will, in the future, be subject to
export authorisation, as the current exchanges are subject to authorisation
to transfer. In general, the process for processing export authorisation
applications is identical to the process for processing transfer authorisation
applications. Moving from one legal regime to another in the United
Kingdom will not change the conditions associated with these exports after
Brexit.
- 2.3.3. The envisaged answers
- The exact text of the provision to be adopted by order has not yet been
decided. Its purpose will be to transform current transfer authorisations into
export authorisations, in order to avoid the companies concerned having to
request a restatement of the licenses already issued, which would force
them to file export authorisation applications. . The review process for this
type of application is indeed very rigorous. It imposes an interdepartmental
review. Each request is studied case by case according to several criteria
with a variable processing time, on average 40 days, which would be
lengthened by a phenomenon of administrative congestion, if each
company concerned had to renew all of its transfer licenses underway to
the United Kingdom. However, concerns remain, as in other industrial
sectors, regarding the introduction of any customs duties associated with
Brexit, which could jeopardise the economic balance and cooperation in
the field of defence materials.
-
- 4 ° - Interbank settlement system and execution of contracts in
progress
-
- 2.4.1. Context of Article 2. 4.
- Given the role of the London financial center in the financing of the
European Union and the euro area, measures should be foreseen to
deal with the consequences of the withdrawal of the United
Kingdom . Currently, the European Financial Passport enables City-
based operators to operate freely in another Member State in a
facilitated manner by complying with all Community rules and
mechanisms. If the United Kingdom were to leave the European
Union abruptly on 30 March 2019, it would be deprived of its rights of
access to the single market and this includes the "passport" and vice
versa. Community operators' access to the UK market would depend
on the goodwill of the United Kingdom authorities. This is why the
Government has decided to take, on specific and urgent points,
signaled by the actors of the banking and financial market, the
necessary provisions to make this transition as undisturbed as
possible, pending the Community framework for future relations.
between the United Kingdom and the European Union, which will no
doubt include the application of equivalence regimes.
-
- 2.4.2. Presentation of Article 2. 4 °
- The draft law, in paragraph 4 of its Article 2, envisages the measures
to be taken to mitigate the impact that a Brexit would have without a
transitional period in three areas, namely: banking and financial
operations, framework agreements and stable financing of
continental players, and more particularly French players. Firstly, the
Government plans to take measures to allow the French entities to
maintain access to the interbank payment and settlement settlement
systems of third countries, including the United Kingdom, as from the
date of its withdrawal, by ensuring the finality regulations made using
these systems. This will clearly benefit certain UK-specific payment
systems (CLS, CHAPS and CREST) from the protections provided by
Directive 98/26 / EC on settlement finality in payment and settlement
systems. since this directive will cease to apply in the United
Kingdom on 30 March 2019 in case of non-agreement. Secondly, the
measure provided for in paragraph 4 of section 2 of this bill is intended to
allow the continuity of the use of framework agreements in the area of
financial services. Indeed, in order to deal with the consequences of the
withdrawal of the United Kingdom, it is planned to establish a new standard
contract for swaps and derivatives and it is appropriate to modify the law
on some specific points in order to: - financially cover the operations of
spot exchange currently not included in the scope of obligations eligible for
clearing-termination, secondly the purchase, sale and delivery of precious
metals, thirdly CO2 quota trading; - allow the parties to a derivative
contract to charge late arrears capitalised in case of default of payment
due less than a year, aligning with Anglo-Saxon law (in legal terms
"anatocism"). Thirdly, the article refers to the proper performance of
contracts concluded prior to the loss of the recognition of the United
Kingdom's United Kingdom entities in France (the "European Financial
Passport"). "). With the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, institutions
under UK financial law will become third country companies and lose the
European financial passport, ie they will no longer be able to operate in the
territory of the United Kingdom. the European Union, unless physically
transported to the same territory. It was therefore necessary to ascertain
what would become of the contracts in progress. Normally, the safest
option would be for these contracts to be transferred to entities under EU
law as recommended by European regulators. The issue will no doubt be
dealt with at the Union level, but as a precaution, the Government
proposes to take all necessary legislative measures to secure the transfer
of these contracts and secure the conditions for their execution. 2.4.3.
-
- Access of French Entities to Third-Party Interbank Payment and Settlement
Systems Including the United Kingdom In order to reduce the uncertainty
associated with participation in payment systems and systems of payment
settlement of securities transactions and to ensure the efficient operation of
cross-border payment and securities settlement mechanisms in Europe,
the European Union has adopted Directive 98/26 / EC, referred to as the
"Finality Directive", regarding finality of payment and settlement of
securities transactions. This Directive applies to payment and securities
settlement systems, to any participant in such systems and to collateral
provided in connection with participation in such systems or in central bank
operations. Payment systems handle the payment flows of the economic
and financial sector. CORE is the French retail payment system; it is based
on an infrastructure operating on the basis of multilateral clearing with a
deferred settlement once a day in central bank money on the accounts of
participants opened in the TARGET2 system which deals only with
payments in euros. Under current French law, those who participate in
payment and settlement systems governed by the law of a country that is
not part of the European Union are not subject to the provisions derogating
from the bankruptcy regime or the rules conflict of law as to the place of
registration of the guarantees constituted in the context of participation in
these systems. However, it is clear that in the event of a sudden withdrawal
of the United Kingdom in March 2019, it becomes a third country and the
provisions of the Finality Directive will no longer apply to UK systems in the
event of bankruptcy or insolvency of a French participant, which may lead
the system concerned to refuse French participants who are nevertheless
important players in the foreign exchange market and the sterling market,
and this because of the high uncertainties that they would create for the
system. It is therefore necessary to legislate to fill this gap and thus allow
French players to continue to intervene on the foreign exchange market
and the UK market after a possible abrupt withdrawal from the United
Kingdom and not to question the place they occupy. currently in this
market. (2) Continuity of the use of framework agreements in the area of
financial services The use of the framework agreement was born from the
Anglo-Saxon banking practice: it appeared on the over-the-counter
markets which are free markets and who do not have any official rules of
supervision. The parties therefore freely choose the rules they wish to
apply which become the law of the parties. From this freedom came the
need to use framework agreements on financial instruments to organize
markets that were not. Framework agreements provide stakeholders with a
contractual set of operating rules for future transactions; these framework
agreements also allow a unified or quasi-unified treatment of disputes.
Today it appears necessary to modify French law to continue to use
framework agreements in the field of financial services and allow the
development of the standard contract of the International Association of
Swaps and Derivatives (ISDA) under French law. Two points are
concerned: the extension of the field of operations eligible for
compensation-termination and anatocism. (a) Expansion of the scope of
operations eligible for close-out netting This is now to cover FX spot
trading, the sale, purchase and delivery of precious metals and quota
transactions. CO2. As rightly pointed out by the rapporteur in the National
Assembly of the draft law "PACTE" in his report (NA No. 1237 - Fifteenth
legislature - Volume I, page 450): "The conventions eligible for the close-
out netting are early cancellable and the related debts and receivables are
compensable. Offsetting is the main feature of the system common to
transactions in financial instruments ". It is therefore possible, if necessary,
to calculate a single balance. This mechanism has a proven track record
and is a technique designed to reduce systemic risk in OTC derivative
contracts. In its impact study of the proposed measure already in the
"PACTE" draft law, the Government in turn recalls that this technique
"allows parties that have concluded several derivative contracts to reduce -
via a convention - frameworkthe counterparty risk between them from a
gross amount of reciprocal commitments to a net balance. In the event of a
default by one of the counterparties, all the contracts between them are
terminated: the loss that each party represents for the termination of each
contract is evaluated at market conditions, then the cancellation
indemnities are offset in a single balance. ". ISDA has sought one or more
rights of the European Union in which to draft its model contract to deal
with the consequences of Brexit. The place de Paris and the Government
considered that the development of this standard contract in French law
would be a measure of attractiveness for the Paris market, an asset for
France and a response to a brutal Brexit. While working on this adaptation,
it appeared necessary to modify our law in order to extend the
cancellation-compensation and to relax the anatocism. (b) Anatocism The
Government asks to be empowered to introduce a relaxation of anatocism.
Anatocism is the possibility of capitalising the interest accrued on a debt of
money and thus making them produce interests in turn. But this financial
technique is framed in our law and only interests that are due for at least
one full year can produce interest themselves. On the contrary, we note
that Anglo-Saxon framework agreements are more flexible and allow
interests to produce interests automatically and automatically. It has been
considered desirable, in order to make our law and our place more
attractive, to bring it into line with Anglo-Saxon practice. It is therefore
proposed to provide specifically in French law for ISDA-type master
agreements that the capitalisation of interest be possible, even in the case
of interest due for a period of less than one full year. 3. Securing the
conditions for the execution of contracts concluded prior to the loss of
recognition of UK entity approvals in France As already stated, as of 30
March 2019, in case of withdrawal from the European Union without a
period transitory institutions in UK financial sector will become third country
companies and lose the benefit of the European financial passport. Under
these conditions, British operators wishing to provide new banking,
financial or insurance services in the Union territory will have to
apply for an equivalence or mutual recognition scheme or transfer
part of their activity. in favur of a permanent structure established on
the territory of the European Union and regulated by the European
texts. At this stage, the present draft law is only concerned with
situations in progress and therefore with the contracts existing at the
time of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European
Union. It is agreed at first that the loss of the passport does not in law
invalidate the contracts which have been validly concluded before
Brexit. The question of the execution of these contracts over time
seems more delicate. There are two problems. The first concerns the fate
of the contract and one wonders if the loss of the passport can be
considered as a valid cause of resolution or termination of the contract.
The second concerns the provider who continues to perform the contract
and in doing so, violates the monopoly reserved for licensed financial
professionals. Apparently, a large majority of professionals agree that there
is no uncertainty for the majority of contracts in progress and that, insofar
as they do not involve the provision of a new service after the Brexit, the
contracts concluded before Brexit by British institutions located in the
United Kingdom with French customers located on the territory of the
Union will not see their continuity questioned. However, legal uncertainties
could arise for two categories of contracts, according to the Paris Place
Committee. First, in the field of insurance, two analyzes are opposed.
Either it is considered that the insurance business continuing after the
Brexit is an illegal exercise and the contracts must be transferred to
authorized entities in the Union. Either it is considered that the
management of an insurance contract is not to make a new commitment
but only to manage the consequences of a commitment already contracted
and the transfer is not necessary. The coexistence of these two
interpretations is in itself a source of insecurity and the transfer seems
preferable. This uncertainty must be removed before March 30, 2019.
Secondly, in the area of investment services, with respect to so-called
market transactions (derivatives, securities lending or repurchase
agreements), financial institutions conclude with counterparties to the
framework agreements which govern the general obligations of the parties.
These parties then enter into transactions under this framework
agreement. A market transaction concluded prior to Brexit may validly be
executed after the Brexit unless the UK party modifies an obligation
essential to the transaction (such as the nominal amount). To avoid
uncertainty and legal uncertainty, the amendments that constitute essential
obligations of the parties should be limited. In the area of portfolio
management, buying or selling decisions are recurrent and therefore a UK
entity after Brexit would provide unlawful services. Here again, the national
legislator - or better, the European legislator - should intervene with each
purchase or with each sale and in the meantime, a transfer of contracts
upstream of Brexit is preferable. The present draft law envisages all these
cases and considers that the legal situation should be clarified by
amending the Monetary and Financial Code and the Insurance Code by
ordinance. The objective pursued by the Government is to define a solution
for contracts in progress which would present uncertainties for the
contracting parties. To this end, a management regime for extinguishing
contracts in progress must be defined, which would lead the service
provider to fulfill its commitments made by carrying out the operations
strictly necessary for the settlement of existing situations in the best
interests of the customers. The Treasury, which your Rapporteur has heard
in the hearing, seems to consider, however, that these precautions will only
be useful for a very large batch of contracts. However, the information
presented by UK Finance (a professional association bringing together
national and international companies in the UK financial services sector,
including leading French players established in the United Kingdom), also
heard in a hearing, seems to indicate otherwise.
-
- 5 ° - Transport flows through the Channel Tunnel
- The draft law empowers the Government to draw the consequences of a
Brexit without agreement on continuity of transport flows through the
Channel Tunnel.
-
- 2.5.1. Current law
- Freight transport services and international rail passenger services
have gradually been opened up to competition at European level. The
opening up of rail transport to competition has taken place in several
stages: - The second railway package (2004) opened up freight to
competition; - The Third Railway Package (2007) opened international
passenger transport (including cabotage) to competition; - The fourth
railway package (2016) provides for the opening of national passenger
transport to competition on 14 December 2020 for commercial services
(TGV) and from 25 December 2023 for contracted services. The
transposition of this fourth railway package is underway, in the framework
of the law n ° 2018-515 of June 27, 2018 for a new railway pact. It follows
from these successive "trains" of legislation that, in order to move within
the European Union, railway undertakings must obtain a license and a
safety certificate issued in a country of the Union. Drivers must hold a
license issued by any Member State and valid throughout the Union. The
three railway undertakings currently operating cross-Channel services
(Eurostar, GB Rail Freight, DB Cargo UK) are currently all holders of safety
authorizations ("Part A") issued by the United Kingdom. Cross-Channel rail
transport is also part of the Canterbury Treaty of 12 February 1986
between France and the United Kingdom, which does not suffer the impact
of Brexit. This treaty authorized the construction and operation of the
cross-Channel fixed link, in the form of a concession without public
financing or guarantees. It also lays down a number of obligations for the
two governments and for the concessionaires of the route (see, for
example, Article 4, for border controls). The treaty establishes an
intergovernmental commission to follow on behalf of both governments and
by delegation of them all the issues related to the construction and
operation of the Channel Link. Article 4 of the Treaty of Canterbury of 12
February 1986 "Police and Border Controls" (1) Border controls shall be
organized in such a way as to reconcile, as far as possible, the fluidity and
speed of traffic with the effectiveness of such controls. "(2) The procedures
for police, immigration and customs controls, as well as sanitary,
phytosanitary, veterinary and any other controls that appear necessary,
shall be the subject of a Protocol or other additional agreements . "(3) This
Protocol or these agreements shall provide that the officials of the
administrations may exercise their powers in a juxtaposed control area
situated in the territory of the other State. (...) "(4) The construction and
maintenance of the buildings and installations necessary for border
controls shall be borne by the Concessionaires under the conditions laid
down by the Concession. "(5) Each Government is responsible for the
payment or recovery of the costs of the controls incumbent upon it. »
In the case of the Channel Tunnel, the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental
Commission acts as a "national" security agency and issues security
certificates. ('Part B') both to the railway undertakings using the tunnel and to
its manager, Eurotunnel. Safety certificates: Parts A and B In order to provide
rail transport services on an EU rail network, a railway undertaking (holder of
a railway license issued in France by the Ministry responsible for transport)
must hold a security certificate. This security certificate consists of two parts: -
part A, which corresponds to the security management system put in place by
the company: it can be issued by any national security authority (ANS) within
the organization; EU; - and part B, which constitutes the operational version
on a given national rail network, and which is issued by the competent
national authority on this network (in France, the public railway safety
establishment).

2.5.2. Brexit issues


In 2016, the total value of trade through the Channel Tunnel represented
26% of the total trade between the United Kingdom and the EU 27. The
total amount of market value passing annually in the tunnel amounted
to 138 billion euros, including 22 billion euros of trade with France, with
imports and exports being balanced. The majority (54%) of EU-UK trade
via the tunnel is with Germany, Belgium and France, which ranks third.
In 2017, 1.6 million lorries used Eurotunnel shuttles. 21 million
passengers traveled through the tunnel, or 57,000 passengers a day. Of
these, 10.3 million passengers took the Eurostar. According to information
provided by Getlink, trade via the Channel Tunnel represents 2,500 direct
jobs, 2,500 additional jobs created and 250,000 jobs created by the resulting
economic activity. Brexit raises many long-term questions: - With regard to
the question of the transposition of the technical pillar of the 4th railway
package, it was pointed out to your special committee that the British seemed
at this stage to be in favor of the transposition of the this technical pillar; 1
"Economic benefits of the Channel Tunnel in the EU", EY survey for Getlink,
June 2018.For the future, the common membership of the United Kingdom,
the France and the European Union to the Intergovernmental Organization for
International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), created on 1 May 1985, is expected to
address certain issues related to interoperability. At this stage, however,
infrastructure does not fall within the scope of OTIF. - The issue of mutual
recognition of security licenses and certificates will also arise. In case of exit
without agreement, the question of the validity of railway company licenses,
train driver's licenses and safety certificates issued in the United Kingdom
prior to Brexit will be a matter of urgency. In fact, the authorizations issued by
the United Kingdom will cease to be valid in the EU 27. Carriers will have to
obtain licenses and safety certificates from the competent authority of a
Member State. Brexit could also make the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental
Commission lose its status as a "national" safety authority, competent for the
issue of Part B of the safety certificates.

2.5.3 The envisaged responses


To ensure the continuity of flows through the Channel Tunnel, it is
necessary to provide for emergency measures that will apply if no
solution is found with the United Kingdom, and if European Union is not
adopting the necessary measures. This Bill would then allow the
Government to act unilaterally to recognise the validity of railway
licenses, safety certificates and train driver licenses issued by the
United Kingdom before a durable solution can be found. . However,
railway operators have already been invited by the European
Commission and the Ministry of Transport to obtain such authorisations
from the competent authorities of one of the EU27 Member States. The
draft law will only be useful as a last resort, and in agreement with the
European Union, if the aforementioned recommendations of the
Commission and the Ministry were not followed up in good time. The
intention of the Government would then be to take strictly limited
measures for services using the Channel Tunnel for a temporary period.
It could also be a question of dealing with the question of the National
Safety Authority competent for the tunnel if the role of the
intergovernmental commission was questioned.

Article 3 Regime applicable to construction and development work


necessitated by Brexit The draft law empowers the Government to put in
place a particular procedural regime in order to be able to carry out urgently
the work required by the restoration. border controls, including in case of
agreement. 3.1. The law applicable to infrastructure projects Various
European and national provisions apply to infrastructure projects, and they
contribute to considerably longer delays. These provisions cover vast areas
of law. Legislation that may apply to construction projects or the construction
of premises, installations or infrastructures The applicable provisions fall
under the following codes: - the code of town planning: building permit; - the
environmental code: inventory requirements Fauna Flora Habitat,
authorisations under the Water Act (wetlands), ERC approach (avoid, reduce,
compensate), public inquiry, opinion of the environmental authority , opinion
of the National Council for the Protection of Nature; - the code of public
health: passage in council of the environment and health and technological
risks; - the heritage code: archaeological diagnosis; - the public procurement
code: choice of project management for the buildings, consultation deadlines,
transfer to the central commission of the markets, delay after rejections of the
companies; - the labor code: requests for night work or weekend work; - the
transport code: transfer to the investment committee, port council; - the
general code of ownership of public persons: rules of the public domain; - the
code of expropriation: public inquiry, parcel survey. Some of these provisions
implement rights protected by the Constitution: - The right to property (Articles
2 and 17 of the Declaration of Human Rights and the citizen); - The principles
of access to information relating to the environment and participation in the
development of public decisions having an impact on the environment (Article
7 of the Environmental Charter). The different procedures applicable to the
same project Source: Information report by Mr Philippe Bonnecarrère, No.
556 Volume I (2016-2017) of 17 May 2017.
The law already provides for the possibility of more flexible procedures: for
example, in the environmental field, public participation can be organised
electronically (Article L. 123-19 of the Environment Code) particularly in the
case of projects for concerted development zones, projects of a temporary or
of minor importance, or, since the law of 26 March 2018, decisions necessary
for the preparation, organisation or running of the Games. Olympic and
Paralympic Games of 20241. 3.2. The challenges of the Brexit Eurotunnel on
the one hand, and the ports on the other hand, are today faced with the
prospect of an upgrade of their infrastructures: car parks, sheds, buildings will
have to be set up to accommodate new controls and manage flows. This
problem also affects, to a lesser extent, airports, which will have to adapt their
control procedures to the consequences of Brexit. The facilities will have to
be adapted mainly to new customs controls, on large volumes of goods. The
nature and extent of these controls will, of course, depend on future
agreements with the United Kingdom. Even though the reporting formalities
are, at the moment, massively dematerialized, the need to protect both the
single market and the customs union will require effective controls. The
restoration of sanitary and phytosanitary controls implies the establishment of
infrastructures dedicated to the entry points, with particular constraints related
to the perishable nature of the object of these controls. The effectiveness of
these controls will again be essential, given the possible impact The
geographical and economic realities make that the borders of France will
become due to the Brexit, more than they are today, those of the big market
European. This is a reality that France has not known for forty years, which
requires profound changes that will gradually increase. To a lesser extent, it
will also be a question of adapting the border control of the people. Indeed,
even if the United Kingdom did not belong to the Schengen area, its nationals
will now have to be integrated into the traffic lanes for passengers coming
from third countries. Moreover, they will be able to claim the tax refund, which
will also require adaptations. In 2017, 745 million tonnes of goods passed
through the United Kingdom through the ports of the North Sea Channel.
Ports 1 Law No. 2018-202 of 26 March 2018 on the organization of the
Olympic and Paralympic Games of 2024. Mainly concerned are Calais (65%
of the tonnage in 2017) and Dunkirk (23% of the total). tonnage) then Le
Havre (5.5%), Caen-Ouistreham (3.6%), Dieppe (1.9%), Cherbourg, Brest
and Roscoff. The investments to be made are, for example, valued at 25
million euros in Dunkerque. In Dover, it is estimated that an increase in the
transit time of 2-minute trucks could trigger a 27 km traffic jam. In order to
avoid creating such bottlenecks in the traffic lanes, the establishment of
storage areas will be necessary. 3.3. The envisaged answers The
government wishes to anticipate the upgrading of the infrastructures, in
particular road and port, in order to avoid as much as possible that the Brexit
does not affect the fluidity of circulation and thus the trade between France
and the United Kingdom. The question of human and financial means arises.
It is essential but is not intended to be dealt with by this bill. Mr. Gérald
Darmanin, Minister of Action and Public Accounts, confirmed to your special
commission the creation of 700 additional jobs of customs officers in three
years. With regard to sanitary and phytosanitary controls, which fall under the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, an additional 40 FTEs are planned in the
draft budget law for 2019, to deal with Brexit. Will that be enough? Your
rapporteur in doubt. A gradual but effective increase of these controls will be
necessary, as well as a pooling of their cost at European level, which requires
the creation of a support fund, insofar as it is a question of protecting the
single market. and the Customs Union, which are common goods to all EU
Member States. 27. The present draft law must resolve the question of the
legal means necessary for a rapid upgrade of the facilities and services. road
and port infrastructure. Work is necessary and urgent. But the sedimentation
of multiple procedures does not allow to act quickly, in the current state of the
law. This is a question that deserves debate, beyond the Brexit perspective:
are these procedures sufficiently readable and efficient today? It seems to
your rapporteur that they, on the contrary, hinder the ability of our country to
adapt to, or even anticipate, rapid and inevitable economic developments.
The Parliament recently passed a law allowing the use of simplified
procedures, in order to allow the organisation in Paris of the Olympic and
Paralympic Games of 2024. The Brexit will not take place, it, in but next year!
France is not late but it is urgent to act. The government wishes here to be
authorised for a period of six months, that is to say for a shorter period than
that provided for in Articles 1 and 2, which is twelve months. It is a question of
being able to start the work as soon as possible. Your committee approves
Article 3 and wishes to consolidate it legally. In particular, it adopted
amendments by its rapporteur to: - clarify that common law must once again
become applicable, once absorbed the shock of Brexit, which requires urgent
action, because of its historically exceptional and sudden nature
( amendment COM-21); - specify that the particular procedural system to be
put in place will be a "simplified" system compared to existing law
(amendment COM-22); - secure the authorisation by stating that the
measures instituted must be strictly proportionate to the objectives pursued
and respectful of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution
(amendment COM-25). Your committee has adopted editorial amendments
COM-14 and COM-23 as well as Article 3 as amended. Article 4 Deadline for
tabling the ratification bill Article 4 provides that a bill of ratification shall be
tabled in Parliament within six months of the publication of the ordinances
referred to in Articles 1 to 3. If this period was not respected, the orders would
lapse in accordance with Article 38 of the Constitution; the earlier right would
be restored accordingly1. On the other hand, the lack of express ratification of
the orders by the Parliament does not deprive them of their legal value.
Ratification or not, there are two options for ratification of ordinances: a) the
ratification bill is never placed on Parliament's agenda and the orders are
never ratified. The orders retain a regulatory value and can be challenged
before the administrative judge. However, at the expiry of the authorization
period, only a new law may amend unratified orders2; (b) the ratification bill is
placed on the agenda and ordinances are expressly ratified. Orders then
have legislative value and can be challenged before the Constitutional
Council. A new law is needed to change them. On the initiative of its
rapporteur, your committee has reduced the deadline for tabling the bill to
ratify ordinances (amendment COM-15) from six to three months. The
parliamentarians could thus express themselves more quickly on the
ratification of the ordinances taken by the Government. Your rapporteur also
recalls that such a three-month period is generally used for the tabling of
ratification bills3. Your committee has adopted Article 4 as amended. 1
Constitutional Council, 1st and 2nd July 1986, Law on the Election of
Deputies and Authorizing the Government to Delimit the Electoral Districts by
Decisions, Decision No. 56-208 DC. 2 Council of State, December 11, 2006,
National Council of the Order of Doctors, Case No. 279517. 3 See, by way of
example, Article 8 of Law No. 2017-1340 of September 15, 2017 d
empowerment to take measures to strengthen social dialogue.
Title of the Bill As it was introduced on the Senate Office, the text was
entitled: "Bill Enabling the Government to Make an Order" preparing for
the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union ". Your
special committee has adopted the editorial amendment COM-24 of its
rapporteur amending the title of the draft law. She put the word "ordonnance"
in the plural, echoing Article 38 of the Constitution, which provides that: "the
Government may, for the execution of its program, ask the Parliament for
authorization to make orders, during limited time, measures that are normally
within the realm of the law. Tuesday, 16 October 2018 1. Hearing on the
consequences of Brexit in France for the transport of goods and persons by
Mr Jacques Gounon, President and CEO of GetLink SE (Eurotunnel), Mr
Antoine Berbain, Deputy Managing Director of HAROPA (Ports of Paris Seine
Normandy) and Mr Olivier Thouard, Chairman of the Brexit Commission and
Ms Anne Sandretto, General Delegate TLF Overseas of the Union of
Investment Enterprises Transport and Logistics of France (TLF) Mr. Jean
Bizet, President. - Our agenda calls for hearings that will inform our special
commission on the issues and the very content of the enabling bill it is
mandated to examine. Our first auditions will focus on the consequences of
Brexit in France for the transport of goods and people. I am pleased to
welcome on your behalf Mr. Jacques Gounon, President and CEO of GetLink
SE (Eurotunnel), Mr. Antoine Berbain, Managing Director of HAROPA (Ports
of Paris Seine Normandy), and Mr. Olivier Thouard, President of the Brexit
Commission, and Anne Sandretto, General Delegate TLF Overseas of the
Union of Transport and Logistics of France (TLF). We want to gather your
analysis on the consequences of a lack of agreement - we may be fixed in
forty-eight hours. What about the cost, with the necessary adjustments to put
in place adequate controls, human resources that will have to be mobilized
and unavoidable delays that are difficult to compress? We are obviously
concerned about the fluidity of cross-Channel trade and therefore the
attractiveness of French ports compared to their Dutch and Belgian
neighbors. Faced with these challenges, what solutions are possible? I was
yesterday in Geneva to reflect on the evolution of the WTO, and the Brexit
issue is on everyone's lips: the fear is that of a weakening of the Twenty-
Eight. I would add that the orders will only deal with national issues and not
with matters that come under the European Union. Mr. Jacques Gounon,
President and CEO of GetLink SE (Eurotunnel). - Some figures to measure
the impact of Britain's exit: through the Channel Tunnel, inaugurated 24 years
ago 1.6 million trucks, 2.5 million cars, 21 million passengers - half of them by
Eurostar -, 2,500 freight trains, 25 million tonnes of goods - market value of €
130 billion and are roughly equally divided between each of the two
meanings. Great Britain does not produce only services: thus, the Scottish
salmon is largely sliced and smoked in Boulogne-sur-Mer; moreover, the car
parts of BMW cars are mounted in the Kent plants. The Channel Tunnel also
has 2,500 employees working 24 hours a day, 2,500 induced jobs and
250,000 jobs created by the resulting economic activity. The Channel Tunnel
now sees a quarter of the flow between Britain and Ireland and Europe of the
Twenty-Seven. The first consequence of Brexit, whatever its nature, which in
my opinion is insufficiently perceived, is that Britain will become either on 30
March or after a very short period of transition, a third country. In terms of
border and customs control, it is the international rules of third country rights
that will apply, even if adjustments are possible. A number of conditions,
notably those defined by Europe, will apply and will influence the nature of the
controls. States, which are in charge of these police and customs controls,
will have to put in place means adapted to the situation. In this respect, the
Channel Tunnel will be the only land link between France and a third country,
and between this third country and Europe. Notwithstanding the quality of the
services that work on the file, there is more today know-how in France in the
services on what is the management of a land border through which millions
of trucks and cars with a third country: everything has to be reinvented, even
though the nature of Brexit remains largely unknown. All operators consider
that it is necessary to be realistic given the many jobs at stake. Key points:
logistics and human resources. In logistics, as in some ports or Roissy-
Charles-de-Gaulle, will require warehouses, cold stores, loading docks. The
construction of these facilities by the States will have a very significant cost.
Regarding their exploitation, the Minister of Budget and Public Accounts
announced the recruitment of 700 customs officers - which will take time -
spread across the entire border of the coast. This will certainly be insufficient
given the flows - 24 hours 24. For example, the control center of living
materials of Boulogne-sur-Mer is closed between midnight and five in the
morning. The Channel Tunnel concession requires it to operate 24 hours a
day on 365 days a year: goods reception facilities can not close at night. For
the services of the State, it is a considerable challenge. Ports, which are used
to receiving containers, have the Cargo Community System (CCS), a pre-
declaration system that can manage their reception. This system is made for
containers for which you have reasonable notice, not for trucks - for example
48 hours for those coming from North Africa. The trucks that loaded the
morning to Garonor come at the entrance of the Channel Tunnel - or the port
of Calais - two hours or a half or three hours later. To date, there is no
computer system capable of handling these extremely short predeclarations,
even though CSC officials have planned to transform it. However, the
computer product will not be completed on March 30 and the nature of the
controls that Europe will ask France to enforce is unknown. Socio-human
issues are not sufficiently apparent: behind all this, jobs are at stake. It is not
the resolution or the non-resolution of the problem of Northern Ireland that will
facilitate the life of the coastline. French, who finds himself in a situation he
has not known for forty years and who does not have the computer, human
and logistical means to manage this situation. We have repeatedly pointed
out to our interlocutors that a whole series of provisions have to be urgently
reviewed. Thus, if nothing is decided on March 30, in theory, the Eurostar and
our shuttles will no longer be able to cross the English Channel, Scottish or
Irish salmon will no longer arrive in Boulogne-sur-Mer, exports of Picardy
potatoes will be interrupted, etc. The sudden or progressive disappearance of
intra-European agreements will require the conclusion of bilateral
agreements. The air sector has more control over this type of subject since
France has always received flights from third countries. But for a large part of
the ports and for the Channel Tunnel, this situation is new and concerns very
technical subjects. In theory, on March 30, everything must have been signed
with Great Britain. But France, as far as I can understand, refuses to open
bilateral talks as long as the general Brexit "framework" defined by Europe
will not be stopped. Finally, concerning the numerous warehouses and
wharves, these can not be created before two or three years in view of the
regulations that must be complied with. It seems desirable to the operator that
I am that the orders, even if the Council of State indicated that they were
perhaps ill-defined and a little broad, allow to take exceptional measures, for
example in matters planning, so that the warehouses are built within a
reasonable time, without undue delay, without unnecessary disputes - even if
they are understandable. Whatever the nature of Brexit, I repeat, France is
going to rediscover a land border that it has not used for forty years. Mr
Antoine Berbain, Deputy Chief Executive Officer of HAROPA (Ports de Paris
Seine Normandie). - The exceptional situation just described is applicable to
ports, the means to cross the Channel being quite comparable in terms of
operational objectives. In the face of Brexit, in the absence of an agreement,
we are faced with a very short-term economic challenge with the return of
customs controls at the border, veterinary and phytosanitary controls, and a
longer-term challenge, that of development of our direct trade with Ireland -
which is now mainly supplied via the United Kingdom. What matters to us
today is mainly the very short term and the return of border controls from
March 30th in the absence of agreement. The controls will necessarily lead to
slowdowns and have impacts that are quite difficult to quantify, but probably
very important for the costs of road, sea or rail transport up to the final payer.
To carry out these controls, it will be necessary to adapt infrastructure, real
estate and human resources. There will also be, potentially, a more or less
long-term impact on flows and a decline in our trade with the United Kingdom
because of the rising cost of trade and, probably, tariff or non-tariff barriers,
such as possible differences in standards. Potentially, from March 30, it will
be necessary to be able to control in ports, to the United Kingdom, 4.5 million
trucks per year, mostly from the Hauts-de-France - 4.3 million - but also since
Normandy - between 200 000 and 300 000. HAROPA is concerned only
marginally by these flows: the direct line of ferries between Le Havre and
Portsmouth treats about 30 000 trucks. On the other hand, a port like Calais,
which processes up to the equivalent of 2 million trucks per year, is primarily
concerned. The port of Cherbourg processes the equivalent of 200,000 trucks
a year. Let us also mention the port of Roscoff. To facilitate these exchanges,
it will be necessary to make investments on the infrastructures to allow the
management of these flows, but also on the information systems allowing a
total dematerialization of the customs formalities. The Cargo Community
System, used for maritime trade with Asia or North America, can be adapted
to cross-Channel traffic, but with very different operational requirements.
Thus, the boarding and disembarking time is approximately forty-five minutes,
with many rotations. The system must be redesigned to be able to deal with
these very different cross-channel flows in terms of the pace of those we are
currently dealing with in Le Havre - even though we handle 3 million
containers every year. We must be able to anticipate: the declarations will
have to be made before boarding the boat so that the customs or the control
services can decide, even before they land, which trucks they wish to control
physically. In trade with China or the United States, the rate of physical
customs control of containers is quite low: around 1.5%. It will therefore be
necessary to determine the level of physical control of cross-Channel traffic.
With regard to goods subject to veterinary or phytosanitary control, the
controls of the services of the Ministry of Agriculture are much more
systematic. The resources to be implemented will therefore be greater,
particularly in terms of training.
-The situation is quite paradoxical: in the eventual prospect of an agreement,
we are waiting to react, but, in the absence of agreement, the measures to be
implemented will be extremely important. It will then be necessary to adopt
legislative measures to accompany this exceptional situation. Ms Anne
Sandretto, General Delegate TLF Overseas of the Union of Transport and
Logistics Companies of France (TLF). - The TLF Union (Transport and
Logistics of France) is a professional union gathering all the trades of the
transport - road, maritime, air as well as the customs - and the logistics. Our
members are all affected by the effects of Brexit, and worried. We represent
25% of the employees in the sector and we count among our members
eighteen of the twenty largest French companies. This corresponds to 80% of
express mail flows and 95% of global customs operations in France. Brexit
poses problems in terms of safety, safety and also phytosanitary control.
Road hauliers, so far, have no equivalent tool to the Cargo Community
System (CCS). Everything is to invent. Most traffic is taken into account by
the transport organizers, who are forwarding agents. In France, they have a
responsibility, often extended in terms of results, in the relations between
importing and exporting customers. With Brexit, the United Kingdom will
move from European to third States. We have created a transversal working
group on Brexit, coordinated at European level, and chaired by Olivier
Thouard. In addition, we chair the European Customs Institute. We have
exchanged with our British counterparts and with the British tax and customs
authorities to build hypotheses, because we are currently in the most
complete uncertainty. Olivier Thouard, chairman of the Brexit Commission of
TLF Overseas. - Chairman of the Brexit Working Group, I am also Tax and
customs director for the Gefco group, which operates in 45 countries around
the world, which most of the European countries. Mr. Gounon presented the
issues very well in his introduction; I will enter the concrete of our professions.
The carriers are freight forwarders: we sell our transport activities to large
groups and SMEs. We have very few drivers, and let SMEs work on the
national or European territory, who charter trucks and drivers. They
sometimes have only three trucks; digitization could be a problem for them,
the obligation to buy a tablet truck could dissuade some to go to England ...
Last September, we were told, during a meeting in Brussels, that 40% of
trucks that cross the Channel are Polish, because fewer and fewer West
European drivers agree to go there. Tomorrow, we may have trouble finding
drivers. Licensing policy is also problematic; it is double-edged: on the French
and European side, British deliverers - albeit few in number - will be able to
deliver goods, but no longer pick them up. And will a French truck have the
right to cross, to deliver, then to collect at ten to fifteen British equipment
manufacturers before returning at night through the tunnel or ports? Currently,
this is happening in the automotive sector, and that must continue tomorrow;
the durability of the companies is at stake. We are worried, and our
customers too. They are planning storages for four to five days in border
areas - this is already the case for the pharmaceutical industry in Britain.
Another problem that you raised, how to manage the contracts. Currently,
European contracts do not take into account customs. Mrs. Anne Sandretto. -
Neither safety, nor security! Mr. Olivier Thouard. - Tomorrow, industrialists
may have to manage the customs - many still do not know. The origin of the
products will cause difficulties. In the case of Brexit, in the automotive sector,
duties and taxes will be 4% for parts and 10% for cars. If the exchanges are
currently balanced, the traffic is likely to be questioned with the Brexit: pay
4% of customs to buy its parts then 10% when delivering the car, it is more
profitable. All major British groups are questioning the continuation of their
production in the United Kingdom. If the UK becomes a third country, it comes
out of the European prism of certification. Thus, an airplane wing leaving this
country will have to be certified again on French soil. We must obtain
recognition agreements very quickly for all these certifications so as not to
jeopardise these activities. The same is true for product tests, if European
bodies are no longer recognised in the United Kingdom and vice versa.
Phytosanitary certificates are also a crucial topic. Mrs. Anne Sandretto. - We
were already complaining about the lack of manpower in all ports. Brexit will
amplify the situation. Mr. Olivier Thouard. - You mentioned Roscoff, a port that
does not have phytosanitary control, while agrifood is one of its main
activities. In case of import or export, in customs, this phytosanitary certificate
is a prerequisite. But the European Union does not want to multiply the
control points: it is a stalemate for the carriers. We will not send trucks from
Roscoff to Le Havre to carry out this check! It is urgent to find solutions. Mrs.
Anne Sandretto. - The freight forwarders organising the traffic - transport,
logistics, customs - will find themselves in complete illegality. And the French
administration does not joke with that! Mr. Olivier Thouard. - The deadlines
will be greatly extended. We try to find solutions, but the profession is not
ready. At a meeting in Brussels in mid-September, three-quarters of the
representatives of logisticians from different countries confessed that they
were not ready or had not started to talk to their administration. The huge
French backlog is due to uncertainty: which company will hire if tomorrow it
might not need it? We met a member of Michel Barnier's Task Force Article
50, who gave us the date of October 28th. Yes, but what happens next? We
would prefer that it be finished by that date rather than saying, "We'll talk
about it again in December. Mrs. Anne Sandretto. - This poses us some
problems in terms of recruitment and training. Some companies will face a
30% or even 50% increase in their returns. Mr. Olivier Thouard. - It is already
too late to train enough people by March. My group estimates that it will have
to recruit 50% additional staff. We will come together to find solutions. Mrs.
Anne Sandretto. - We are thinking about the attractiveness of our businesses
and will pool efforts. Mr. Olivier Thouard. - Customs declarant is a fairly well
paid job, we should be able to recruit. Tomorrow, I will not know how to start
on the platform of Calais. We have some trucks going from Le Havre to
England. We have no equivalent to the CCS. We will have to interface, but on
whom? Large groups can manage data. In the case of exports from France to
the United Kingdom, we must validate the export at the exit, for reasons of
security, but also for tax reasons: this justifies the tax-free bill sent to our
British colleague. Such an electronic platform exists in airports, or in the ports
of Le Havre or Marseille-Fos via the AP + system. How will we work tomorrow
with the ports? Since May, we have been trading with Her Majesty's Revenue
and Customs (HMRC) on pre-declarations. It will authorize the importation as
soon as the goods leave the French ports; the customs declaration will be
deposited from the past French port, and the necessary controls will be made
during the crossing. At unloading, either the trucks will leave directly, or they
will be set aside in case of problems. You are the first to mention this subject.
Mr. Jacques Gounon. - There is no symmetry between France and the United
Kingdom: the United Kingdom plans to carry out physical checks up to
twenty-five kilometres inland, while France, due to Community rules, can not
control the goods outside the entry points on the territory - ports and tunnel
terminal. It can do it, only through secure corridors. The application of British
rules is more pragmatic. For the Channel Tunnel, import and export are
equally distributed: France receives on its territory as many goods as France,
Benelux and Germany send to Great Britain. In the Channel Tunnel, a shuttle
truck leaves every ten minutes - the equivalent of Ryanair, with unloading in
ten minutes and reloading in ten minutes. The crossing lasts only thirty-five
minutes. Ports are more likely: the waiting time between two ferries can vary
between 1 h 30 and 3 hours, and the crossing time is considerably longer - 1
h 30 between Calais and Plymouth and a night between Le Havre and
Plymouth . The very logic of the Channel Tunnel design, as defined by states
at the time of the Canterbury Treaty, was to provide a two-way crossing of no
more than 90 minutes from highway to highway. This commitment is held to
85 to 90%. We need dematerialisation, because the processing time of
printed matter requires either not to respect the delay of one hour and a half,
or to recruit considerable means, which the Government does not envisage.
Common sense would be that Great Britain, who wanted to leave, pays the
consequences. But in terms of organization, carriers, logistics, France will be
exposed as much, if not more, to the consequences of Brexit, because it is
taken in the framework of the European construction.

Mrs Anne Sandretto. - We need a total dematerialization of all procedures,


including safety and security. We are able to do a risk analysis very quickly;
we have tools for the customs procedure and phytosanitary certificates. Now
we need clear rules and an electronic platform. Locally, there is no data
reception platform in the ports that would anticipate the arrival of certain high-
risk goods for rapid control. On the model of the CCS, implement a national
platform neutral, which would allow any company, whatever its location, to
access the system securely, regardless of the type of product and the point of
entry. Mr. Olivier Thouard. - We are indeed afraid of a diversion of flows. Via
the Channel Tunnel or shipping, we can currently deliver with the same driver
in a day. If the flow is slowed, the driver exceeds his hours of work. In this
case, as long as he goes to Antwerp and leaves his truck on the boat ... We
follow the request of our customers: if a place, like the tunnel, blocks, we will
go to the side. There is therefore a risk of competition from the ports of
Holland and northern Europe. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - But these are not
the least skilful in this area ... Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Thank
you for your interventions. First people we hear, you have been very helpful
and very clear. The Senate thus takes into account the mass of difficulties
your companies face. I apologise for having sent you the questionnaires so
late, and will insist on a few points, on which you can send us answers in
writing. Can you elaborate further on the consequences of longer delays for
the companies themselves, who are your customers? Because of the
difficulty of traveling on British soil, we are afraid of unfair competition. There
are many more heavyweights going from France to Britain than vice versa.
Once they have crossed, they may face this unfair competition, resulting in
longer delays. We need an assessment of the possible effects of the controls
as well as their costs. It will invest in sheds and parking. The carriers are not
ready to dematerialise the controls, for lack of training? What is the degree of
diffusion of the CCS? Is it in focus? Where will the flow go to the ports of
Northern Europe? In this case, what will be the consequences on French
ports, such as Roscoff or Le Havre? It is a fundamental problem; French
ports are not doing very well. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - This special
commission has an extremely short life. However, the points you raised will
be used by the follow-up group, which will probably last until December 31,
2020, the official end of the transition to Brexit. Mr. Jean-François Rapin. -
The problem of veterinary services is essential. While it takes between
eighteen and thirty-six months, depending on the qualifications, to train a
customs officer - the minister has committed to train nearly 700 customs - the
training time is much longer for a veterinarian . Also, I'm afraid we're not up to
the challenge. As you mentioned, we need to mobilise human resources, as
we have never had to do in such a short time, as well as real estate and
movable resources. In the case of a hard Brexit, how are the new securities
resources considered? Some companies will encounter financial difficulties
and cash flow problems in view of the structural delays you mention. There
will be a gap between the ability of companies and that of the French state to
respond to these problems. This question may be subject to orders directly
related to the Ministry of Industry, or even the Ministry of Industry. Regarding
real estate resources, in the Pas-de-Calais, two transfer sites exist in Calais.
However, because of the difference in structure, it will not be possible to pool
resources. So again there are questions. Moreover, I fear that the Hauts-de-
France, or even Le Havre, will be abandoned by European operators in favor
of Belgium, which has a stronger responsiveness. Finally, France has to deal
with a pure European problem. How to pay the bill to other European
countries, because foreign flows are numerous in France? Mr. Jean Bizet,
President. - Very good question. Mr Bruno Sido. - Any reform makes cringe.
The Brexit obviously poses problems, it will have to shake the customs, the
routines. But I do not measure the importance of the flow of goods in millions
of trucks or tons. Can you give us an order of magnitude with respect to
supplying Britain with bombs and torpedoes during the Second World War? It
is a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and the Armed
Forces who speaks to you ... Finally, I wonder about the ability of one and the
other to adapt. The private will adapt, I do not worry. Mrs. Anne Sandretto. -
We will adapt, we know how to do it. We need deadlines. Mr Bruno Sido. -
There are deadlines. You know how to do it, it's the flexibility of the private
sector. The real question is: will the French and European administrations
adapt very quickly? Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - Especially the French
administration. Mr Bruno Sido. - Finally, do you think that we are moving
towards a decrease in trade between Great Britain and the rest of Europe?
Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - Excellent question. Mrs. Maryvonne Blondin. - As
Senator of Finistère, you will understand the reasons for my presence in this
special committee as regards issues related to maritime transport, fisheries
and agriculture. As you know, Brest and Roscoff have been excluded from the
core network of European ports. If this continues, Brittany will become an
island, while journeys between Ireland and Britain are the shortest. Mr. Jean
Bizet, President. - This is a community issue that goes beyond the scope of
our mission and the empowerment that has been given to us. Mrs.
Maryvonne Blondin. - Certainly, but it has impacts on the development of our
region. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - Important impacts. Mrs. Maryvonne
Blondin. - You mentioned the customs controls of veterinarians. This is an
additional function that will have to be assumed by Roscoff customs
personnel, who already carry out immigration-related tasks. I do not know
how they will be able to combine all these functions. I guess these questions
will be part of your thinking about professions and training. Mr. Jean-Michel
Houllegatte. - I am from Cherbourg, whose port during the war had a higher
traffic than that of New York, but the customs formalities were different at that
time, and fortunately! My question concerns the famous entry points. There is
a special procedural regime applicable to work for construction and
emergency installation. Where are you ? What discussions did you engage
with the state services? Have you already identified land needs? Is there
currently a dialogue with these services to anticipate the construction of
premises? Ms Fabienne Keller. - Thank you for enlightening us on the
situation which, from day to day, is more confused. Which strategic sectors
could be put in great difficulty by the absence of rules or rules that you feel
complex? In what areas are new infrastructures needed to ensure flows in
good conditions? Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - To reassure Mrs Blondin, we will
do everything to revisit the corridor issue well before the deadline of 2023,
precisely because of Brexit. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - I would
like you to distinguish your answers according to whether there will be a
withdrawal agreement or not. It has been well understood in your
interventions, whether there is agreement or not, it will provide equipment and
investments. Mr. Jacques Gounon. - A very beautiful monument actually
recalls the dedication of the French and British, who had made common
patrol in the Strait of Pas-de-Calais during the Great War to provide transport.
In twenty-five years, the Channel Tunnel has created its own commercial
activity, a quarter of all trade between Great Britain and the Twenty-Seven.
With the port of Calais and the other ports, we have been able, within Europe,
to offer the most efficient and efficient solutions to carriers and shippers.
Brexit or non-Brexit, you say that the private will adapt. But we are talking
about border controls, which are the sole responsibility of the States.
However, like my colleagues, my concerns are - I will bring here a very clear
answer and perhaps voluntarily a little provocative - on the delay of decision
of the French State in this matter. Mr Bruno Sido. - Indeed. Mr. Jacques
Gounon. - It is the responsibility of the state, of all of us, but also of you in
particular. What will happen if we lose the attractiveness that allowed us to
build considerable exchanges. As Mr. Thouard pointed out, trucks, carriers
and shippers will go elsewhere. In other words, it is not so much, as it is
wrongly said, a collapse of the British economy that will ensue - the British
growth rate will continue to be around 1.5%, the equivalent of our growth rate
- but the departure or arrival of the flows will leave Belgium and the
Netherlands. That is the problem. Ms. Fabienne Keller. - Does the Belgian
administration react better? Mr. Jacques Gounon. - Of course. Just go to
Zeebrugge to convince yourself. Mrs. Anne Sandretto. - With regard to the
transport of goods, it is clear that the Dutch and Belgian administrations are
much more flexible and work much more collaboratively with the private
sector: they are partners and not potential fraudsters. . We need clear rules,
which secure us legally. Mr. Antoine Berbain. - Ports are infrastructures that
compete with each other. Today we know this competition for Asia and North
America among others, it will now exist for the cross-Channel, with control
systems that will differentiate us in our ability to facilitate the passage of
goods and therefore the international trade. Belgian and Dutch ports are
known to be easier than ours; they are less so for customs than for veterinary
and phytosanitary matters. Mrs. Anne Sandretto. - I do not agree. Mr. Antoine
Berbain. - Perhaps you can invite the customs services to talk about it.
French customs is, it seems to me, efficient, because it achieves a level of
very targeted controls: 1% of physical controls with regard to import and
export with 100% dematerialization of customs processes, against almost
systematic physical checks for phytosanitary and veterinary products. As we
know, many flows escape us, including fruits that pass through Belgian ports.
Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - They do not practice European
standards? Mr. Antoine Berbain. - Yes, but differently. Mrs. Anne Sandretto. -
When products destined for France enter Belgium or the Netherlands, the
checks are practically nil. This explains the loss of flow. Mr Ladislas
Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Can you give us concrete examples? Mrs. Anne
Sandretto. - We have very detailed studies on this subject. Mr. Olivier
Thouard. - In France, we respect the European rule. To my knowledge, the
Belgians were called to order a few months ago. Mrs. Anne Sandretto. -
Because we filed a complaint. Mr. Olivier Thouard. - We are in the norm, not
them. There are far fewer controls when you go through Belgium than
France. Mrs. Anne Sandretto. - It's clear. Mr. Olivier Thouard. I do not say that
we must follow Belgium. But Belgians do not respect the rules. Ms Fabienne
Keller. - And the Netherlands? Mr. Olivier Thouard. - The Netherlands has not
been called to order. We rarely have problems with this country. To answer
real estate questions, deal or no deal, there will be customs declaration and
border control, the Commission has been very clear. As a private operator, I
wonder why the state does not take the right decisions right away. If we need
buildings, roads, we do them now and not in two years! Mrs. Anne Sandretto.
- We are asking for workshops. We want to invest immediately provided we
have in front of us an administration that takes its responsibilities. Mr. Olivier
Thouard. - It is necessary to distinguish what will remain tomorrow from what
will not remain. The customs declaration, the border stop, the phytosanitary
controls will remain. Do not wait! Let's go! Mrs. Anne Sandretto. - Safety and
security and risk analysis. Mr. Olivier Thouard. - There may be disagreement
on security rights. With regard to the volume of flows since 1993 and the
opening of borders, customs agents have, with the help of Europe, abolished
many posts, which are being recreated. The flows exploded because there
were no more borders. The crossroads and the industrial mesh are such that
one is much more related to Great Britain than in 1993. You ask which fields
would be the first concerned: the phytosanitary field and agriculture because
of the compulsory controls; the automotive industry where everything is linked
and nested. The parts manufacturer is supplying not only the Toyota plant in
Great Britain, but also the PSA plant in Sochaux. If Toyota decides to close its
plant, it will jeopardise the economic activity of the British supplier and also,
by domino effect, that of the Sochaux plant. Economic actors want to avoid
the hard Brexit. In my opinion, there will be a decline in activity. BMW has
already announced the closure of its plant in Britain in April for work, without
announcing the date of reopening. Toyota and Nissan have also spoken in
favor of a closure. There is an obvious political effect. What we are sure of is
that the automobile industry will suffer from the situation, but we do not know
today the economic impacts. Mrs. Anne Sandretto. - I draw your attention to
the fact that many exporters are becoming first-time exporters. We are facing
an immature population. We are able to do the work, but we must give us the
elements that will enable us to organize ourselves, to structure ourselves, as
well as deadlines. WORK IN COMMITTEE - 97 - Mr Jean Bizet, Chairman. -
France and the Netherlands respect the rules, but the Dutch reading is much
more constructive. Dutch administrations are business partners - you will
allow me not to say how French administrations are towards companies. But
we are leaving the field of work of the special commission. Mr Bruno Sido. - I
think the British will try to multiply bilateral agreements. What is your point of
view on this point? Mr. Olivier Thouard. - They said it, they are already
discussing with Australia for example. They want to leverage free trade
agreements as soon as possible. Mrs. Anne Sandretto. - Great Britain was
already in partnership with the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany on many
new projects concerning dematerialisation, customs and security. But France
has never participated in these projects, which I have criticised several times
to the administration. Ms. Fabienne Keller. - This is administrative
cooperation? Mrs. Anne Sandretto. - Absolutely. These co-operations took
place in the framework of European projects financed by the European
Commission. Over seventy-five projects have been funded in recent years.
Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - Do you have specific documents on this point?
The Union of Twenty-Seven remains united in this matter; Britain can not
negotiate with one of the members. There may be local approaches, perhaps,
but we would like to have information on this. 2. Hearing on the
consequences of Brexit on the financial services of Mr. Robert Ophèle,
President of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), Mrs. Marie-Anne
Barbat-Layani, Managing Director of the French Banking Federation (FBF),
and that MM. Arnaud de Bresson, General Delegate, and Alain Pithon,
Secretary General, Paris Europlace Mr Jean Bizet, President. - We now
welcome Mr. Robert Ophèle, President of the Autorité des marchés financiers
(AMF), Mrs. MarieAnne Barbat-Layani, Executive Director of the French
Banking Federation (FBF), and Messrs. Arnaud de Bresson, General
Delegate, and Alain Pithon, General Secretary, Paris Europlace. Brexit could
fundamentally change the relationship between the UK and the EU in
financial services. The major financial institutions on both sides of the
Channel are linked by forty years of complex regulations. Uncertainty creates
major risks for the financial markets. In its two reports, the Brexit follow-up
group has signaled that Britain will have to abandon its financial passport by
leaving the Union - a set of rules that allows British financial firms to trade and
sell their shares. services in the rest of Europe - but other legal issues arise.
We therefore want to gather your financial risk analysis. What is your
assessment of the measures to be taken in the absence of an agreement with
the United Kingdom? The bill highlights the access of French entities to the
third-country interbank settlement and delivery settlement system, the
continuity of the use of framework agreements and the securing of contract
execution conditions. What do you think? Mr. Robert Ophèle, President of the
Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF). - Most financial activities are highly
regulated activities. EU Member State status implies access to the single
market through the financial passport. This means both the freedom to
provide services and the freedom of establishment. The transition from being
a Member State to a third country is therefore a major break for the United
Kingdom, which risks affecting the right of UK financial players to offer new
services in the European Union, but which also problematic for the stock of
ongoing contracts between financial actors in the United Kingdom and those
in the European Union. Given the importance of the London market and the
density of its relations with the European Union, this break is systemic. Given
the diversity of services, financial actors and the high number of regulations,
both European and national, the situation calls for a detailed analysis, in order
to measure the actual consequences of Brexit and thus enable public
authorities to make the right decisions for the future. to assume or reduce its
scope. In case of absence of a transitional period, no deal Brexit, these
decisions will have to be taken before March 2019 and they will have to be
announced sufficiently early, or even in the coming days for some of them, so
that the private actors can take into account. With the transformation of the
United Kingdom into third countries, UK-based institutions will lose their
financial passports and will therefore at best benefit from access to national
markets in accordance with national regulations. Most current contracts may
continue, but new contracts are prohibited. In some cases, institutions could
regain access to the single market through an equivalence of the third-
country regime recognized by the European Commission with a registration of
the institution with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
European Securities and Markets Authority. It may also be possible to keep a
clientele in the European Union as part of a reverse solicitation, the passive
marketing, when it is not the institution that approaches the customer, but that
who asks for a service. Brexit will initially have consequences for collective
management, which consists of undertakings for collective investment in
transferable securities (UCITS) and alternative investment funds (AIF). The
former are open products, while the latter are much more specialised. UCITS
are governed by a minimum harmonisation directive, and national schemes
are, by construction, quite different from each other. If a UK company wants
to continue to offer a UCITS in the European Union, it will have to transfer it
to a country of the Union and set up a management company, even if it will
delegate the management of the fund to an entity in the UK. -United. This
movement is currently taking place: a number of UK management companies
have settled in the Union, for example in Luxembourg, while delegating most
of the management of the funds to the UK-based entity. United. Naturally this
raises the question of the substance of the entity installed in the Union. In any
case, this is only possible if a cooperation agreement is signed between the
Member States' Financial Markets Authority, the AMF in France, and the UK
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). A co-operation agreement will also be
needed to enable management companies in the European Union that have,
for a long time, delegated all or part of their management to an entity in the
United Kingdom to continue to do so. All UK funds that will not be transferred
to the European Union, whether they are UCITS or AIFs, will become third
country AIFs. To be marketed in the Union, they will be able to use the
national regime that exists in each country for the marketing of third country
funds. In France, for example, the AMF's general regulations provide for a
rather restrictive private placement regime that also requires a cooperation
agreement with the FCA. They can also be marketed through the reverse
solicitation, if it is the customer who makes the move. The last possibility will
be to obtain a European passport, says AIFM, which opens the marketing of
these funds to professional investors only: this supposes a decision of
equivalence taken by the European Commission, an approval of the
management company in the United Kingdom. United by a competent
authority of a country of the Union, the reference authority, that of the country
where the main marketing is supposed to be involved, and finally a
registration with ESMA. These plans are therefore very restrictive. No
equivalence has so far been given by the European Commission under the
AIFM scheme. In fact, this constitutes a very strong incentive for UK
institutions to resettle or set up an activity in the EU 27. As regards existing
funds, in particular French funds, regulations will have to be adjusted.
because many of these regulations provide for limits of ownership or risk
allocations between the EU and third countries. When a country of the Union
becomes a third country, the exposure weightings or limits must be reviewed,
resulting in portfolio adjustments. For example, if one does not change the
rules, a deposit in a UK credit institution by a French fund will not be possible.
A derivative contract with an investment firm in the UK will no longer be
allowed either. The feeder funds will no longer be in the UK. Some assets that
are eligible in the funds today because they are Union assets will no longer
be eligible. Thus, securities issued in the United Kingdom will no longer be
eligible for the French PEA: a common fund to be eligible for the PEA will no
longer have exposure in the United Kingdom, even if it is minimal. It will
therefore be necessary to assess the scope of this mini-shock and possibly
decide on transitional measures or measures to mitigate the consequences: it
would be, for example, possible to allow the maintenance of current
exposures until their term while prohibiting new positions. This falls under
national, legislative or regulatory regulations. In any case, it will be necessary
to act quickly to avoid shocks on the markets. With regard to other investment
services, management mandates or financial advice for retail clients and
optional business clients, there will not be a financial passport in any case,
but will be able to offer its services, country by country, in line with the way in
which the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) has been
transposed. In general, as is the case in France, third-country companies
must set up a branch in the target country to distribute investment services.
However, this branch will only be able to operate in the territory of the country
concerned; if the company wants to market its products throughout the Union,
it will have to open branches in each country. For professional clients by
nature, in the absence of an equivalence decision, the national system will
apply. In France, this regime does not exist yet. Article 23 of the Bill on
Growth and Transformation of Enterprises (Covenant) as adopted by the
National Assembly requires the establishment of an approved branch. I do not
know exactly when you're going to look at it, but it may be that it's needed
before the act comes into force, which may be the reason for using the
orders. In some countries, such as the Netherlands, the provider is approved
without requiring a national presence. As in many cases, reverse solicitation
is also provided at the request of the client. The European Commission could
make an equivalence decision; in this case, there will be an agreement
between ESMA and FCA and the registration on the ESMA register will allow
to offer the services in the Union, without local presence. Today, we consider
that the equivalence provided for by the MiFIR European Regulation is too
favorable for the institutions that would benefit from it. This text is currently
being revised at the level of the European Parliament. At this stage, however,
the equivalence provided for in this framework has never been implemented
at European level. It will therefore be necessary to rely on national regimes.
Another point is market infrastructures and trading platforms. Certain financial
instruments are subject to a trading requirement on a trading platform. This is
called bond trading, which in the context of European regulation is required
for most equities and certain derivatives - interest rate swaps (IRS) and
credits (CDS , credit default swaps). In the absence of equivalence, this
obligation can no longer be fulfilled on UK platforms. The equivalence
decision is a question that needs to be carefully considered. Currently,
equivalencies exist for US or Swiss platforms: how do you explain that a
Google share must be compulsorily processed on a European Union
platform, while liquidity is on the market? native market in the United States? I
come to clearing houses - that's the heart of the debate! The European
Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) provides for the possibility of
equivalence. We granted it to the United States. A reform of this regime is
underway. In the absence of an equivalence decision, the central clearing
obligation for certain products, in particular the IRS and CDS, and certain
players, such as credit institutions and large non-financial companies that are
very active in the derivatives market , can no longer be performed on the
clearing houses of the United Kingdom. This may have perverse effects,
especially for intragroup transactions, which are currently exempt from the
central clearing requirement, but will no longer be if part of the group is
located in the UK. If the central clearing obligation can no longer be
performed on the clearing houses of the United Kingdom, the Union
institutions will no longer be clearing members of these clearing houses and
these clearing houses can no longer be used by the clearing houses. Union's
negotiating platforms, as Article 25 of the EMIR Regulation prohibits it. In
Germany and Italy criminal proceedings may even be instituted in case of
violation of this rule. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Is it then in our
interest to leave the clearing houses in the United Kingdom? Mr. Robert
Ophèle. - I'll come back to it. Another subject, which is the subject of a
possible measure in the order you mentioned, is the issue of defect
management. The Directive "Purpose" (Directive 98/26 / EC on settlement
finality in payment and securities settlement systems) protects transactions
entered into a payment system against the bankruptcy of one of the
participants: it allows for the continuation of payments incurred prior to
bankruptcy and prevents their retroactive cancellation in the event of default
by a member of the chain. It is a guarantee of security for a number of
systemically important systems, and it avoids the propagation of shocks.
These are designated systems in the European Union. There are three in
France: the Target2-Securities system, managed by the Banque de France,
the CORE system for retail payments and the systems managed by
LCH.Clearnet SA. If the scope of the above Directive is not extended to
institutions outside the Union, these systems will no longer be able to accept
EU clearing members because of the risks involved. An article in the draft law
deals with the CLS system by which all foreign exchange transactions are
paid and which is located in the United Kingdom. The question will also arise
for the clearing houses of the United Kingdom. I will end with your question
about the interest for us to participate in this type of room. We must
distinguish between the short term and the medium and long term. I do not
believe that, on March 29th, with a magic wand, all the exhibitions or
operations that are currently compensated in the United Kingdom will be able
to disappear and be relocated to the European Union. for reasons of liquidity
or availability of products, even in the United States. So there may be a
problem of cliff effect, but I assure you, it is a problem that must be solved at
European level. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - Mrs Barbat-Layani, what role do
you think the different competent bodies - Financial Stability Board, Basel
Committee ... will play in the new architecture that will be put in place in the
coming months? Ms. Marie-Anne Barbat-Layani, Executive Director of the
French Banking Federation (FBF). - First of all, I would like to refer to the
provisions contained in the draft law that you are examining, in particular
Article 2 (4), which allows for the continuity of French operators' access to
three payment, exchange and exchange systems. securities, which are
established in London or involve transactions in British pounds or British
securities. These very technical provisions concern CLS, as has just been
mentioned, and two less known systems established in the United Kingdom:
CREST and CHAPS. It is important for French institutions to be able to
continue operating in these systems, that is to say to do foreign exchange or
settlement-delivery of British securities. That is why we need to extend the
provisions of the Payments Directive which provide these systems to the
third-party payment system of a third country, in this case the United
Kingdom. Other provisions concern the continuity of contracts. A working
group led by the High Legal Committee of the Paris financial center worked
on this question, which is certainly important, but not gigantic. Noting that
certain contracts or framework agreements, in particular the FBF framework
agreements, are important for operators, the Government has provided for
the continuity of these documents, particularly when the counterparties of
French banks are British. These measures, which are naturally part of a
context of hard Brexit, should, in my opinion, be inserted into the legislative
vehicle most suitable for different schedules. They are provided for in the
Pact Bill, but given the current general uncertainty, they could potentially be
incorporated into the enabling bill that you are looking at. Mr. Jean Bizet,
President. - Answer on November 6th! Mrs. Marie-Anne Barbat-Layani. - With
regard to the Basel Committee and the Financial Stability Board, Brexit is not
going to make a lot of changes. At the moment, the European representation
is not unique or "communitarised", the European institutions being sometimes
simple observers. For example, the institutions of the euro area are part of
the Basel Committee, but alongside the representatives of several Member
States. Europe is already struggling to make its voice heard in these forums.
In this context, the fact that the United Kingdom no longer co-ordinates
upstream within the European institutions with the other Member States may
give rise to fears of a lesser unity. I take an example. As part of a mandate
given to it by the G20, in particular the Basel Committee reached an
agreement in December 2017 on financial stability, in particular in terms of
requirements for banks. This is the finalisation of the Basel III process. This
agreement, which is the subject of a recent report by the European Banking
Authority, globally respects, at the global level, the mandate that had been set
in the Committee not to increase the general constraints on banks: these
constraints will increase by around 3.6% overall, but the increase will be
around 20% for European banks, while the demands on US banks will fall! As
we can see, the mandate that was set is far from being respected for
European banks. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - But are American banks really
subject to these constraints? Mrs. Marie-Anne Barbat-Layani. - This type of
agreement must be transposed by the jurisdictions that are members of the
Basel Committee, the measures do not apply directly. In the European Union,
it is European directives or regulations that will have to implement this
implementation; this will be important work for the future European
Commission. The US authorities will decide, for their part, to transpose or not
this agreement. They had made the commitment to do so, but in any case it
corresponds to the requirements made in June 2016 by the Ministry of the
Treasury ... This example shows that the European financial model did not
emerge especially favored from these discussions, but, to come back to this
point, and even if it is not the banks themselves who participate in the
discussions - it is the central banks - it should be noted that all the European
parties present on the Basel Committee defended a common position,
sometimes with some nuances. We can not anticipate what will happen
tomorrow when such talks will happen again, but it is likely that the alignment
of positions with the British authorities will not be so spontaneous. I remind
you that these international bodies have more Anglo-Saxon models in mind
and it is already difficult, as I said, to make the European voice heard.
Defending the continental banking model was a very important issue for the
euro area, it will be even more so tomorrow. A recent article in the newspaper
Le Monde highlighted the fact that some had been better able to make their
voices heard than others in these discussions, but that in any case is the
responsibility of Europeans to choose their representatives. I remind you that
the European systems did not fail during the crisis - quite the contrary! - and
showed extraordinary resilience; yet, they are sometimes considered today
as riskier. Mr. Arnaud de Bresson, General Delegate of Paris Europlace. - As
Robert Ophele has already evoked in a very precise and pedagogical way
several subjects, I will content myself to evoke only a few points. I would like
to remind you in the preamble that, from the point of view of the Paris
financial center, Brexit is not good news, especially in the long term. We are
convinced Europeans and, in our opinion, the real question is the
competitiveness of Europe as a whole compared to the rest of the world.
Moreover, we had spoken against Brexit, and we regret the choice of the
British people. Of course, from the moment the British people made their
decision, we can only accept it and promote our global offer. On the general
conditions of the current negotiations between Europe and the United
Kingdom, three subjects appear important from the point of view of the
financial center and the industrialists concerned. First, the transition period.
We support its principle, it should not exceed the planned timetable, that is to
say 2020. We certainly need to prepare, but we especially need visibility and
clarity. Long periods of doubt and uncertainty must be avoided. Then the
notion of substance, including passport or delegation issues; In the case of
the European financial center, it is essential that the decisions to be taken
take account of this concept, particularly in terms of location and content of
activities. Finally, the question of the equivalence regime. This is, in our
opinion, the right solution to preserve the conditions of a level playing
field, to speak in good French ... As for the impact of a hard Brexit on
the professional actors, I would simply highlight two points. First of all,
the work of the High Legal Committee of the Paris financial center, to
which Paris Europlace is strongly associated, concluded that there is
no cliff edge for the contracts in progress, that is to say cliff or abrupt
break. This conclusion was not obvious at the beginning of our work.
The insurance sector has already done a lot to prepare for the next
instalments and the conditions of three quarters of the current
contracts have been renewed so that these contracts can continue to be
exploited. Thus, with regard to contracts concluded before Brexit, the High
Legal Committee considers that the risks of a breach in the performance of
contracts are limited, while, of course, recommending that legal uncertainties
be quickly removed. With regard to new contracts, the High Committee
recommends that work be undertaken with a view to greater harmonisation of
the applicable texts within the European Union and greater coherence in their
implementation by the twenty- seven Member States, in particular regarding
equivalence and reverse solicitation. As regards French companies operating
in the United Kingdom and which the draft law aims to take into account, the
place de Paris and the professional federations support the proposed
measures, in particular that provided for in point 4 of the Article 2, to allow
French companies access to the third-country interbank settlement and
settlement-delivery system and to allow the continuity of the use of framework
agreements on financial services and the establishment of ISDA conventions
in French law. This is provided for in the Pact Bill. We support these
measures, which seem to us to be an indispensable accompaniment for
companies operating in the United Kingdom; they do not seem to us in
contradiction with what could be done to, conversely, host international
companies on the Paris market in the context of Brexit. On the other hand, we
want to draw your attention to a subject of concern, mentioned by Robert
Ophèle, that of asset management. Institutional investors in the market regret
that the bill does not explicitly address the issue of the loss of EU asset status
for equities, UCITS and AIFs. In PEAs for example, the limit of 30% of assets
outside the European Union will become a strong constraint, which will have
to be taken into account. On the exemption from the taxation of unrealised
gains on UCITS in European equities and on the tax treatment of mergers
and acquisitions of UCITS, it is necessary to work transitional measures,
timing and sequencing of decisions. This is particularly a concern for the
transition period. In conclusion, I would like to remind you that the place de
Paris is continuing its contacts at the international level to present its range of
services. Reforms have been implemented to strengthen our attractiveness,
they have changed the perception of France in the world and allow us to have
a leading position in the relocation projects that are coming. Mr Ladislas
Poniatowski, rapporteur. - With regard to PEAs, UCITS or AIFs, do you
already have economic evaluations of future movements? Mr. Robert Ophèle.
- For three or four months, a continuous flow of management companies has
been set up in France, Luxembourg or Ireland. Things are very progressive:
companies first create a structure, which employs only a limited number of
people, and then they wait to see what happens. Everything will ultimately
depend on how the negotiations evolve, but once the structure is installed,
even if it is small, everything can go quickly. Other, smaller companies have
not yet organised at this stage, but it is not because a financial services
company has the passport in the context of free delivery that it is actually
active. There is uncertainty about the volume of activity of this type of
business. Many of them will simply stop their activities on the continent, when
they have them. The Autorité des marchés financiers is ready to welcome all
the companies that will want to continue their activities. In any case, all
establishments of significant size have made arrangements to be ready when
the time comes, but we can not know the amount they will switch exactly and
the one they will actually manage in France. There is, I mentioned, a
possibility of management delegation; it is accepted from the moment when
managers are established in Europe and the company has the capacity to
control it. It means a minimum of two people. The question of product
marketing comes next. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Do you have
any idea of the amounts involved for PEAs? Mr Alain Pithon, Secretary
General of Paris Europlace. - Such estimates are very difficult to make, so be
particularly careful. The French association of asset managers has done a
first analysis, which shows that the value of UK equities on the assets of
French funds would amount to about 20 billion euros. This is not a significant
sum in relation to all outstandings, but it can have an impact, especially if
there is no agreement. Mrs Marie-Anne Barbat-Layani. - This amount does
not represent PEAs. Mr. Alain Pithon. - This is the value of UK equities across
all asset management in France. For the PEA, we would be close to 10 billion
euros. Mrs. Marie-Anne Barbat-Layani. - Depending on the scenario, things
will take place over a longer or shorter period. Like Arnaud de Bresson, I
recall that no actor in the financial center was a Brexit claimant. And in the
immediate future, we have to deal with issues related to a scenario that no
one wants, an exit without agreement. That is the purpose of the bill before
you. The questions asked, including in terms of continuity, are ultimately quite
limited for the banking sector, contrary to what one might have thought at one
point. The work of the High Legal Committee is very useful in identifying
precisely these cases and targeting measures to provide them with answers.
We may also need measures at European level, particularly in the case of
hard Brexit for the continuity of the activity in certain clearing houses. For the
banking sector, the various supervisors, be they British or European, have
been working on these issues for months and are preparing for Brexit. For
example, French banks, which for the most part are under the direct
supervision of the European Central Bank, have had to submit continuity
plans, even in worst-case scenarios. Then a lot will depend on the nature of
the agreements that will be concluded between the European Union and the
United Kingdom. We will then have to study very specific subjects: the
equivalence regimes, the requirements set by the regulators to ascertain the
reality of the presence in the European Union, which is consubstantial with
the loss of the passport, the possibility of continuing to whether or not to
operate with clearing houses located outside European jurisdiction ... It is
difficult to anticipate all these questions in a precise way today. What will be
the level of relocations? Everything will depend on the new environment that
will open next April. Financial actors, like all economic actors, are very afraid
of uncertainty, so they take guarantees. As a result, companies based in the
United Kingdom are moving into the European Union, but this is often quite
limited at this stage - some large banks have however bought large buildings
in Paris ... Again, everything will depend on different legal regimes. The loss
of the passport will certainly have a significant impact, but it will materialize
only gradually. Mr Richard Yung. - Like Mrs. Barbat-Layani, I read the article
in the newspaper Le Monde, in which a deputy governor of the Bank of
England, in my memory, explains that the most important things are not
negotiated within the European Union, but in senior international committees
such as the Financial Stability Board or the Basel Committee. And this person
seemed to think that the British were very influential in these instances, which
made the current process not that bad ... Is this boasting or reality? About
clearing houses, I'm not very clear on what we are going to do! They are
mainly located in London - between 80% and 90% of the activity is located
there - but they use the euro a lot. Therefore, we have a certain interest in
controlling what the British do there, because the responsibility of our motto
rests on the European Central Bank and more broadly on the European
peoples. In this context, what to do? Should we force the British clearing
houses to settle on the continent, which seems difficult? What other solution
would be possible? Is it feasible to install a supervisor of the European
Central Bank in London? Can you finally talk about the movement in the right
direction, that is to say towards Paris? Mr. Robert Ophèle. - There is no
international regulation on insurance or financial markets, but there is a
consensus on the banking system or how to deal with clearing houses. For
now, there is no new wave of regulations in sight. Mr. Richard Yung. - No
Basel 4 ... Mr. Robert Ophele. - The discussions on insurance will not
produce anything in the medium term and, on the markets, there is nothing in
the pipes. The European space therefore exists, and has a great autonomy,
even in its banking system, as shown for example by the SME package.
There are clearing houses in the European Union: Eurex in Germany,
Clearnet in France ... In all, we have about ten. Some products are more
processed in London than on the continent, and some are treated only there.
This is the case, in particular, interest rate swaps: SwapClear has a dominant
position in this market, reinforced by its ability to work in several currencies,
but Eurex is developing a competing offer. Even in euros, European banks
account for only a quarter of the traffic. But interest rate swaps are essential
to the stability of the euro zone. Delegating their control and recovery outside
the euro zone therefore poses a problem of sovereignty, which the EMIR 2.2
project aims to overcome. In particular, it is a question of considering the
obligations to be imposed on clearing houses located in a third country. The
answer will certainly be a categorisation of chambers by type and, if it is
decided that a chamber can not be located outside the territory of the
European Union, by withdrawing its equivalence for this activity. It will be a
long and heavy process anyway, if we do not want it to be harmful to the
Europeans. These are not institutions that can be moved overnight: we need
a controlled framework, rules of the game, precise deadlines and controls. In
this respect, the cliff effect of a Brexit without agreement would create a real
problem. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - What is the point of view of the FBF?
Mrs. Marie-Anne Barbat-Layani. - Will we have a Basel 3 or a Basel 4? There
is always a little controversy between the authorities and the banks. In any
case, according to the same authorities, the financial stability agenda put in
place by the international authorities after the crisis has been largely fulfilled,
with the exception of a few refinements still under discussion in the Basel
Committee. The Basel agreement is, as Voltaire's Pangloss would have said,
the best possible agreement between representatives of different
jurisdictions. Its impact on European banks is heavy. We must now look to the
future, and I hope that the public authorities will help us. In particular, the
transposition of this agreement into the European Union must take into
account the specificities of the European banking system. You know that our
financing is 75% based on bank loans and 25% on the markets. This is the
opposite proportion in the United States. It will therefore be necessary to
ensure the financing of SMEs. Europe has already been able to deal with this
issue, with the reduction factor. It would also be good to revive the Capital
Markets Union project, which is the counterpart of the banking union. It was
the great project of British Commissioner Hill, and so it was the first victim of
Brexit. It is necessary for the market to take over the bank credit, even if I am
here to make sure that it will not falter. It will be a real challenge to relaunch
this project without the expertise and know-how of the British. It is essential to
take it up because the regulatory pressure on bank balance sheets is already
being felt. Without doubt, moreover, the continental capital market will present
less Anglo-Saxon characteristics, with a stronger focus on green finance, the
protection of customers - it will be a European market, and we are ready to
come back to discuss it with you. Mr. Arnaud de Bresson. - The construction
of a European capital market is the priority. As we said, the Paris area has
major assets - the presence of customers, talents and infrastructure of place -
plus a favorable ecosystem, thanks to the reforms of Mr. Macron. The
relocation announcements put us at the head of the pack: 4,500 to 5,000
direct jobs, that is to say, half of the target of 10,000 that we had set, which
must be doubled if we indirect jobs induced. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. -
Thank you.

Tuesday 23 October 2018 3. Hearing of Mr Gerald Darmanin, Minister for


Action and Public Accounts Mr Jean Bizet, President. - Thank you for
joining us to discuss the consequences of Brexit, with this paradoxical
situation: for the first time in forty years, we are confronted with an operation
resembling a collective suicide, according to the terms of Michel Barnier. How
to diverge the United Kingdom from the European Union 27, with the least
possible damage? We have to deal with the great uncertainty over the
outcome of the negotiations with the United Kingdom. We must therefore
prepare ourselves for all the assumptions, including that of the absence of an
agreement on the terms of withdrawal. How do you analyze this scenario, are
your services ready to restore customs duties? Which controls will have to be
put in place and according to which modalities? What about the cost and the
human resources that will have to be mobilized? We are concerned about the
fluidity of trade and the attractiveness of French ports compared to their
Dutch and Belgian neighbors. You have before you many elected officials of
the Atlantic facade. This summer, the European Commission has issued a
proposal that is a real provocation, imagining that the interconnection
mechanism in Europe would not initially concern French ports, obscuring the
impact of Brexit on our ports. Finally, how does your administration
accompany companies, which seem to be alone in France while the Belgian
and Dutch administrations support theirs? It may only be a feeling. Mr
Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - I will focus my remarks on three points.
Which staff will be mobilized? Your task is not easy, and you have announced
the recruitment of 700 customs officers, including about forty provided in the
draft budget law (PLF) for 2019. The tunnel sees 1.1 million trucks pass,
French ports 3 ,2 millions. According to the companies we consulted, this will
not be enough to avoid monstrous traffic jams. Can you increase the number
of customs officers? In case of agreement, you will have two to three years to
prepare them, but in case of failure, just six months! How many customs
officers have already been recruited, how many have been trained? We are
very worried about infrastructure. You have before you representatives of the
ports of Roscoff, Cherbourg, CaenOuistreham, Dieppe, Calais, and the
Channel Tunnel that do not have sufficient infrastructure for customs and
sanitary posts, unlike Dunkerque, Le Havre, Saint-Malo and Brest - and
again. How much will it cost? How will you finance them in three years, and
how will you do it in six months? Xavier Bertrand, your regional president,
rightly fears unfair competition from ports in Northern Europe such as
Antwerp and Rotterdam, to the detriment of our ports. Do you have, with your
counterparts in these countries, set the rules of the game, to avoid
"cheating"? One of the largest European pharmaceutical companies,
AstraZeneca, has already invested in warehouses in Antwerp. A portion of his
medication will not go through two of our ports. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. -
The representatives of Cherbourg, Calais, Le Havre, Roscoff are in front of
you ... Ms. Fabienne Keller. - ... and Strasbourg, connected to the Dutch ports
... Mr Jean Bizet, President. - Who will pay? The English, through the Touquet
agreement, have already accustomed us to a certain posture ... Mr. Gérald
Darmanin, Minister of Action and Public Accounts. - It seemed to me that you
were first elected officials of the Nation, unless I did not understand the
Constitution of the Fifth Republic ... Brexit issues concern all ministries,
including the Ministry of the Interior , Agriculture, mine for customs. The
subject of human resources, while essential, is of relative importance as long
as we do not know the legal link that will bind us with our British friends. The
Prime Minister's order is clear: we must act as if the agreement should not be
found, so we risk only good news! In case of "hard" Brexit, we will have no
legal relationship with the United Kingdom. The French administration is
capable, by 2020-2021, of managing these 4 million truck flows in the ports
and through the tunnel. The main question concerns the transitional period,
from 29 March 2019 to actual Brexit, during which we will have to train staff
and build infrastructure. We do not have the right to negotiate with the United
Kingdom, it is reserved for the European Union, through Mr Barnier. For
customs, the United Kingdom has already requested an agreement on transit.
The answer will be given in December. This agreement will significantly
improve the flow of goods. If agreed, the end of the transition period will be
postponed until the end of 2020. But we are preparing for the Prime Minister's
order - a hard Brexit, without transition. We are recruiting 700 customs
officers, to put it simply, half in commercial services, who clear customs and
accompany companies, the other half, in uniform, for surveillance. I can not
give you their geographical distribution, it depends on the legal link with the
United Kingdom. Without a transit agreement, more would have been posted
in the Hauts-de-France, as well as in the regional airports of La Rochelle and
Brittany, where it is the customs who carry out the controls of persons - and
not the police on the borders. I disagree with the rapporteur: we have already
trained, in the excellent schools of La Rochelle and Tourcoing, 350 additional
customs officers, who will be assigned early February, to meet the challenges
of the tunnel or ports. Nearly 250 additional customs officers are planned in
the 2019 PLF, 100 in 2020; half of the recruitments are made and the staff
trained. Since the creation of customs, customs officers do not control all
goods, otherwise it would take ten times the Salvation Army by border
crossing! In my commune, there are 17 border points with Belgium.
Technologies will record flows, and a customs officer can do his job from
Grenoble for a commodity that leaves from this place, instead of doing it at
the border. Administrative checks can be made upstream, and the stop of the
requested truck then. The main problem concerns goods entering French and
European soil and not those coming out. We have three objectives: to protect
the single market, because the UK can not have the advantages without the
disadvantages; fight against illicit goods, be they counterfeit or contraband
tobacco, alcohol or drugs; and the security of the tunnel and the ports against
a possible attack. The second concerns customs in particular, while the third
is shared with the police and gendarmerie services. Where will the border be
for goods, in France, in the United Kingdom or in between? It will depend on
the international agreement. For relations between people, the border is in
France. The British could decide to block the entry of goods into Europe for
diplomatic, practical or economic reasons. The ideal is to have shared offices
- as in Andorra or Switzerland - on both sides of the border, in Calais and
Dover. Customs officers do not control all flows, but focus on controls, based
on the information they have. New technologies are a precious help;
dematerialisation is complete in Roissy, it will soon be the same for trucks.
We have to reimagine a border and do the main thing before, to stop very few
trucks near the ports and the tunnel. FTEs, new technologies and
investments in infrastructure are therefore sufficient to cope with Brexit,
especially with the UK transit agreement proposal. Infrastructure is an
important issue for Calais - while Le Havre and Dunkirk have sufficient
surface areas. The problem lies more in the competition between the tunnel
and the port of Calais than between Calais with Rotterdam and Antwerp,
because the logistics are different according to the places: the driver remains
in the truck which passes by the tunnel or the ferry with Calais, while a new
driver drives the truck on British soil when it embarks at Antwerp or
Rotterdam. In addition, the Flemish safety or environmental standards are
lower: in Antwerp, a petrochemical complex is close to the port, without
borders, and the Albert Canal opens on a large hinterland, unlike French
ports. During the transition period, the comparison is therefore not entirely
relevant, the risk of postponement is lower - even if it exists in the long
term ... In Calais the question of migrants arises, because only 50% of the
trucks are equipped to avoid intrusions. It must be possible, upstream and
equidistant from the tunnel and the port, to control the trucks without blocking
the roads. Hundreds of millions of euros have been invested by the region in
the port of Calais before Brexit. It is now necessary to make new
developments, whether with the support of the region in Calais and Boulogne,
in the state ports of Dunkerque and Le Havre, and in the Channel Tunnel,
owned by a private company. At a meeting chaired by the prefect and the
director general of customs, we expressed the wish to acquire land in Calais.
But none are available equidistant from the port and the tunnel. Near the
tunnel is land belonging to the company Eurotunnel, which is ready to give it
to us for free. Another, in the area of Turquerie, on which the agglomeration of
Calais has interests, belongs to Territories Sixty Two and would cost 20
million euros. It is located at two motorway exits from the port, 9 kilometre
from the port, and four exits from the tunnel. A bar code would anticipate the
arrival of a Dover truck, geolocate the truck and check the goods if in doubt.
Customs will be able to carry out up to four customs procedures, including
emptying the truck, while they do none today. They will be conducted with the
Ministry of Agriculture, for sanitary controls. We would be clear of the famous
deadline of three minutes by truck just on arrival in Calais. I will decide which
land to develop in the next days, so that we are ready for March 29th. The
customs services are also helped by dogs - for the detection of explosives
and narcotics - and scanners. In connection with Eurotunnel is planned the
deployment of an amazing technology, to control the goods of a train running
at 30 kilometres per hour. We are awaiting the approval of the Nuclear Safety
Authority to verify that this technological feat does not cause any health risk.
In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture must specify the number of additional
posts planned for sanitary control. As for the risk of unfair competition, our
Flemish neighbors are more pragmatic and their ports are experiencing more
regular flows. The ports are not alike and are often specialised: Dunkirk in
fruits and vegetables, Bruges for cars ... We do not change so easily a
specialisation! We could build the Seine-North canal, improve our hinterland
and our rail links, it does not depend on Brexit. Of course, the customs are
more or less fussy; I alerted Michel Barnier a year ago, and will travel with the
Minister of Transport to Belgium and the Netherlands at the end of November
to exert friendly pressure on our Flemish neighbours ... This summer, it
appeared that the home port to Ireland would be in Belgium or the
Netherlands. Why not in the Hauts-de-France, for example in Le Havre? The
European Commission is now more attentive. If there is no agreement with
the UK, negotiations will be tough. The French Government does not
negotiate directly with the United Kingdom, but we have contacts with the
British administration and the ambassador to prepare for the eventuality of a
"hard" Brexit. We will meet with the British Minister of Customs to avoid
unhealthy customs competition. Mr. Jean-François Rapin. - You mentioned
the inflow, but what about the outflows? Is this the problem of the British?
What will happen to food safety and veterinary? It will be like the regional
operational monitoring and rescue centre (Cross), they will consider that the
French infrastructure is acceptable and they provide control in their place.
Currently, fewer and fewer British ships are providing maritime assistance,
including in their territorial waters ... Ms. Fabienne Keller. - It's not normal !
Mr. Jean-François Rapin. - Many trucks arrive from all over Europe. If the
British want to show bad faith, they can slow down the flow. I alerted Mrs
Loiseau's cabinet on the fair sharing of costs between the Member States,
since France, which is very committed, will have to build expensive
infrastructure for the benefit of the whole of the European Union. And I doubt
the pro-European orientation of the Belgians, who chose the F-35 rather than
the European plane ... Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Dover is
wedged between a cliff and the sea, which is why the British chose a field 50
kilometres from the port to control trucks. Is it a problem? Mr. Laurent
Duplomb. - Rapporteur of the agricultural budget for the draft budget law, I
saw that the Ministry of Agriculture provides only an additional 40 FTEs and 2
million euros to control foodstuffs coming from the United Kingdom. United.
The British have already shown us their ability to bring into the Union
products - particularly sheep - from their former Commonwealth. To counter
the end of the Common Agricultural Policy, they will be tempted to increase
their exports of agricultural products to Europe; 40 FTEs is little for food
safety and to prevent disease transmission on farms. Since the Thatcher
years, the United Kingdom lacks any veterinary service worthy of the name.
We risk a health problem in European farms. The agricultural budget has
decreased by 571 million between 2017 and 2018. Have we really assessed
the number of people needed? Mr. Jean-Michel Houllegatte. - Cherbourg is
an ultra secure port, I'm not worried, especially since land and buildings
available have already been identified. This is not the case in Ouistreham,
site more constrained. Is it necessary to renegotiate the Touquet agreement
and relocate the intangible border? According to the logisticians, the
European regulation does not allow to deport the port controls; do you
confirm it? What will tariff recovery mean for financial flows? Ms. Fabienne
Keller. - You mentioned unhealthy competition between the ports, which the
carriers have also denounced, because the Belgian ports would be less strict
in their controls - they even mentioned an audit of the European Commission,
which would be in progress. If we applied the Checkers agreement for the
goods, would we not need to put in place the same controls? Mr Ladislas
Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Brexit also includes tax issues, particularly for the
refund of VAT. Will they impose legislative changes? Gérald Darmanin,
Minister. - I am well aware of the issues for companies exporting to the UK or
importing products - like, for example, Pernod Ricard, which I recently met the
leader. We provide them with as much information as possible, and if there is
a pro-business administration, it is customs. It is still necessary that these
companies mobilize! Last week, we invited all those in the Hauts-de-France
who are interested in Brexit to an information meeting in Lille. Out of 550
SMEs, 40 people came ... My impression, to tell the truth, is that there are few
people who believe in Brexit; the French administration, in any case, believes
in it more than its interlocutors. The challenge is therefore one of awareness,
especially since there are real risks that Brexit is very hard. Mr. Jean Bizet,
President. - There is a lot of disbelief, indeed ... Mr. Gérald Darmanin,
Minister. - And the English are not so reasonable as those who do not believe
it say. In any case, even the opponents of Brexit consider that, since the
people have spoken out, there is a real democratic demand to succeed. I
guess the awareness will come as we approach the cliff ... The outflow is the
problem of the British, who will be pragmatic because England can not afford
to play the island self-sufficient. If we consider that the border is only in
France, we will have the same problems as with the Touquet agreements.
The controls we exert on the outflows are only intended to avoid illicit
trafficking. We deal with incoming flows because we protect the common
market. In this regard, we need to negotiate the installation of JNTCs, as we
have done with other countries. There is a real subject in the West Indies,
where our maritime relations with the British are crucial in the fight against
drug trafficking. You know that the zone of the European islands is a hub,
where the drug of South America, whose price keeps decreasing, is traded
almost against equal amounts of hashish or cannabis Maghreb. The French
customs, which is one of the best equipped in the world, intervenes on land,
sea and by helicopter against impressive go-fast nautical, but it uses much
the information provided by the English. Will this flow of information continue
if we have no more legal links? I recently visited Guadeloupe and Martinique
to study the issue. Agriculture is a subject of which I am not a specialist.
Some ports are specialized in agricultural production or fishing: Calais or
Dunkirk do not have the same problems as Boulogne-sur-Mer or Dieppe,
where I planned to go soon with the Minister of Agriculture. I believe that 90%
of seafood processed in Boulogne-sur-Mer comes from Calais, and customs
officers have only a few interventions to make. In any case, the Minister of
Agriculture has participated in all meetings on Brexit, and my department has
given him all the positions he requested in the budget for 2019. Mr. Jean
Bizet, President. - For writing a report on the mad cow crisis a few years ago,
I know that for decades there has been no epidemiological surveillance
network in the UK. This is worrying because any new disease can spread
very quickly from one of our ports. And this British carelessness had cost us
dearly. Gérald Darmanin, Minister. - A third of my trips are devoted to Brexit,
and I meet my services every two weeks on the subject. I imagine my
colleague from Agriculture is doing the same. I will also go to Ouistreham and
Roscoff - and perhaps to Saint-Malo. And we will put land at the disposal of
the Ministry of Agriculture. In Calais, we will set up a customs brigade, and
our services will have to work around the clock. The Director General of
Customs has already done the union and social work in this direction. We still
do not know what the overall cost will be. In any case, between 2020 and
2027, there is a common pot, and as the President of the Republic has
announced an increase in the French contribution to the budget of the
European Union, we are justified in ensuring the sharing of costs. Already,
90% of the cost of the customs stars are financed by European funds. There
is no legislative amendment to provide for the collection of VAT. With customs
duties, we expect an additional gross revenue of about 220 million euros.
Admittedly, there is unfavorable competition for French ports, mainly because
what makes a port is above all its hinterland. For Le Havre, the hinterland
should be Paris, hence the idea of the Seine axis. For Dunkerque, there is the
Seine-North canal, and rail lines will lead to Dijon and Lille. But Antwerp, it
benefits from the Albert Canal, built a century ago. Thus, Nike has all his
shoes delivered to Antwerp, before shipping them all over Europe. In addition
to the hinterland, there is the question of taxation: France taxes its ports - like
everything else - more than the others. The Prime Minister has commissioned
a report on the subject, which will be delivered in a few weeks. Finally, we
must be able to clarify the management between national ports and
decentralised ports. The president of the Hauts-de-France region claims, for
example, the management of the port of Dunkerque, which probably has not
the same size as that of Le Havre or Marseille. The history of our Flemish
neighbors has favoured management by region and ecosystem. Let's add the
question of ecological and safety standards. In Antwerp, there are no barriers,
no surveillance and the petrochemical warehouses are located right next to
the containers ... We would never do that. What do we want? Security,
economic efficiency? Mr. Laurent Duplomb. - It is up to ourselves to ask the
question! Gérald Darmanin, Minister. - Until the day when there is a
problem ... And there is also a customs competition. Belgians have many
customs officers, but do not always do the same checks as we do. However,
the protection of the common market requires a unification of the checks.
Otherwise, the competition is distorted, not to mention the security risks. On
Ireland and the Checkers Agreements, I will give the floor to the Director
General of Customs. Mr. Rodophe Gintz, Director General of Customs and
Indirect Taxation. - To put it simply, Ireland is an island shared between two
countries, between which all wish to avoid restoring a physical border.
However, French Customs can not control goods specifically from Ireland
because it would be discriminatory.The British have a choice between the
reinstatement of formalities within Ireland or the acceptance that part of the
UK will continue to apply the common rules - which is both the most natural
and the most natural solution. more difficult to admit politically. For now, they
have not found a solution - and, as Mr Barnier said, it is up to them to
propose one. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Ms. May does not have a
majority for any of the three scenarios ... Mr. Olivier Henno. - I share your
feeling that there is a general disbelief of companies in Brexit. But companies
will have to adapt not only to the impact of Brexit on volumes, but also to the
changes that it may cause in their structure: we are not immune to a cooling
of trade between France and Britain. Have you, for your part, considered its
consequences in tax matters? Will we recover from duty free zones? Gérald
Darmanin, Minister. - It is difficult to predict the behavior of consumers and
businesses. The duty free shows that the misfortune of some is sometimes
the happiness of others. As the English can tax their purchases, they will
probably consume more in France. Similarly, the French will benefit from the
favorable exchange rate in Great Britain. In fact, I do not believe in a
slowdown in trade: since the 1990s, the number of containers on the sea has
grown by 900% ... For the first time, while for years countries converge
towards common standards , a country will diverge towards other standards.
And, while we imagined the end of the borders, we restore! It is true that the
most important frontiers are now digital: it is easier to pass illicit goods by
parcel than crossing the border with. But the flow of goods is growing steadily.
And I do not see Great Britain differ on this point from Asia or Africa, with
which our relations are also very legally constrained. Moreover, a large
number of English have houses in France. And I am not talking about
marriages or officials, especially at the European Commission ... Mr Ladislas
Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Number of 1,715! Mr. Eric Bocquet. - To illustrate
the determination and pragmatism of the United Kingdom, I am going to read
an excerpt from an article entitled The Little Avantgust of the Brexit
Negotiations, published in April 2017. It recalled that Mr. Davis had stated that
"the Kingdom UK deals with these negotiations in a position of strength "and
that" no agreement is better than a bad agreement for the United Kingdom ".
Then, the journalist wrote: "In a more credible way, [the authorities] remind
those of its" partners "who have forgotten that" the financial services sector in
the UK is a hub for 'money, trade and investment from around the world', that
'more than 75% of capital market activities in the European Union at 27 are
carried out in the UK'. And they kindly warn them that in terms of business,
compromises will not be easy to negotiate: "leaving the EU, the government
is committed to making the UK the best place in the world to do business" .
By the way ... Mr. Gérald Darmanin, Minister. - However, we see that the
sector where the English lose the most is finance ... Most of my comrades
who worked there are gone. France does not recover them all, certainly. And
England can react with a different fiscal policy. But for now, the sector is
suffering. In fact, London voted heavily against Brexit. Mr. Jean Bizet,
President. - Thank you, Minister. Last question, very local: what about
relations with Jersey? Flows with the Granville base have been multiplied by
six and now reach 3,500 tonnes. Gérald Darmanin, Minister. "I will soon be
going to Granville. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - Thank you.

4. Hearing of Nathalie Loiseau, Minister Delegate for European Affairs


Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - Minister, we thank you for responding to our
invitation. With Brexit, we are confronted with a paradoxical situation:
after more than forty years of overlapping and convergence, we have to
work to "un-fit" and learn to manage the divergence with as little
damage as possible. We must also deal with the great uncertainty that
hangs over the outcome of the negotiations with the United Kingdom.
We must therefore prepare ourselves for all the assumptions, including
that of the absence of an agreement on the terms of withdrawal. This is
what the Government intends to do through the Enabling Bill it
submitted to the Senate. We first want to gather your analysis on the
state of negotiations. The last European Council does not lead to
optimism. Can we still hope for an unblocking with a view to concluding
a withdrawal agreement? A few months before the British withdrawal, it
seems indeed essential to prepare for it, whether there is a withdrawal
agreement or not. The Twenty-Seven gave Theresa May a little more
time. One can even imagine that it can reformat its coalition. It is well
known that the measures to be taken are not only legislative in nature; many
of them will be from the European Union or will be regulatory. With respect to
the legislative side, the authority that the government seeks from Parliament
must be specific. It is a constitutional requirement. However, the very
uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the discussions with the United
Kingdom justifies a need for flexibility. The content of the orders will,
moreover, be subject to reciprocity of the measures taken by the United
Kingdom. It will also be conditioned by measures taken in the same direction
by the other Member States; France will have to seek harmonization with the
large Member States, in particular Germany. Your hearing is therefore an
opportunity to explain to our special commission how the Enabling Bill
achieves a balance between the requirement for accuracy of the enablement
and this need for flexibility. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Madam
Minister, I have a previous question: the Government did not wish to make
public the opinion of the Council of State, which the President and I were able
to consult. The Conseil d'État considers the use of orders as "justified both by
the urgency of preparing these measures, but also by the conditional nature
of most of them". It further considers that the Enabling Bill "does not
sufficiently provide Parliament with the purpose of the envisaged measures,
the compatibility of which with European Union law will have to be specified at
the Orders stage". This opinion is not explosive. By not giving him any
publicity, you create a mystery where there is none. Why not allow us to bring
it to the attention of the members of this special commission? I sent you a
questionnaire of 21 questions, which require written answers. I will focus on
five points. If the law is published at the end of November, the Government
would have until November 2019 to publish the ordinances of article 1 -
situation of the British in France - and article 2 - situation of the French settled
in the United Kingdom. This is far too much, with regard to the most urgent
measures. Conversely, you give yourself until April 2019 to publish the orders
of Article 3, which relate to port development work in particular. Why these
deadlines? Regarding entry and residence, in the absence of agreement on
Brexit, what measures would be implemented for the British who already live
in France? How long will they have to regularise their situation? Will they
benefit from an accelerated procedure for issuing a residence permit? What
will be the fate of those who have a right to permanent residence? Work in
Committee - 121 - With regard to employment, can British nationals living on
French territory be granted simplified and rapid access to work permits issued
to third-country nationals, as in the case of Switzerland, for example? What is
the deadline for amending the status of UK branches? Finally, the bill
provides for the consideration of French diplomas and acquired professional
qualifications: do you envisage a deadline and how will the validation be
done? As regards the civil service, in the absence of an agreement on Brexit,
1,715 British nationals will lose their status as civil servants. What is planned
for these people? Financial compensation? Will they retain their seniority?
Finally, we need more details on social security coverage, pensions - British
residents in France and French residents in the United Kingdom - and the
insurance system. The people we meet are worried. Nathalie Loiseau,
Minister of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, in charge of European
Affairs. - Michel Barnier recalls regularly: many progress has been made
since the beginning of negotiations with the United Kingdom on the modalities
of its withdrawal from the European Union, which must take place on March
30, 2019. He believes that the negotiators have managed to to agree on 90%
of the draft withdrawal agreement, on key chapters of the negotiation. This
concerns in particular the rights of European citizens in the United Kingdom,
who should be able to continue to reside, work and study in the United
Kingdom under the same conditions as those currently provided for by
European law; the Financial Regulation, since the United Kingdom finally
agreed to fulfill its obligations; a transitional period starting on 30 March 2019
and ending on 31 December 2020, when the United Kingdom should continue
to apply the full acquis without participating in the decision-making process .
However, nothing is approved until everything is approved. This is a principle
that we set at the beginning of the discussions. Negotiations are still
stumbling over the question of the Irish border. We are now waiting for the
United Kingdom to quickly clarify its position on the Irish withdrawal
agreement protocol and to make a real effort to find a solution if it wishes to
avoid withdrawal without agreement. The position of the European Union is
unchanged: in the absence of a better option, we need to have a safety net,
the backstop, which would essentially keep Northern Ireland in the market. -
and avoiding the return of a physical border on the island of Ireland, which
would threaten the implementation of the Good Friday agreements. This
position of principle had been the subject of an agreement with the United
Kingdom in December 2017, which detailed very precisely that, in the
absence of a better solution, we would agree on this safety net with an
alignment. Northern Ireland, with regard to the implementation of the Good
Friday Agreement, to the Single Market and the Customs Union. In addition,
we still need to agree on a political declaration on the framework of our future
relations, which will be attached to the withdrawal agreement. On this point,
the negotiating principles that we agreed on March 23 at 27 remain our guide,
whether it is the balance between rights and obligations, or the decision-
making autonomy of the European Union. Respect for these principles will
preserve the integrity and cohesion of the Union at 27, while maintaining a
close relationship with the United Kingdom in the future. The negotiators
thought that they had found a technical agreement to obtain a backstop on
the Irish border in the withdrawal agreement, with a regulatory adjustment of
Northern Ireland to the Union, which would not apply because both parties
would be working from the end of the transition period to maintain the United
Kingdom for a given period in the customs union. This would require
accompanying measures, on the one hand, to ensure fair competition on both
sides of the Channel, on the other hand, in exchange for access to the single
market for their products from the sea, the British allow fishing for European
vessels in their waters. Ms. May dismissed this trail ten days ago. On
Wednesday evening, she was able to observe the unity of the members of
the European Council around our guidelines and our negotiator, Michel
Barnier. We want the negotiations to resume, but that means that London is
moving: the technical solutions are known, what is needed is the political will
on their part. The conclusion of an agreement capable of permitting an
orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union remains the prime
objective of the Twenty-Seven and the Government. We are calm and
determined, but we can not exclude the hypothesis of a failure of negotiations
between the European Union and the United Kingdom because of the serious
uncertainties weighing on the critical issues of the negotiation and the
hypothesis a lack of ratification by one of the two parties - I think of the British
Parliament. Whatever happens, the Member States, the Union institutions
and all the actors concerned must prepare for the changes that will result
from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, as the
stressed the European Council in its conclusions of 29 June. In particular, a
withdrawal from the United Kingdom without an agreement would require the
Union and the Member States to adopt contingency measures in areas falling
within their respective remits. At Union level, a team dedicated to this
preparatory work has been specifically set up in this perspective within the
Commission's General Secretariat. It identifies the measures that should be
taken in the event of withdrawal without agreement in areas falling within the
competence of the Union. We also need, at the national level, to prepare
ourselves for the eventuality of a withdrawal without agreement. To this end,
the Prime Minister has asked all ministries to identify the consequences of a
lack of agreement and the measures to be taken, including in the event that
we have very little time to do so before March 30, 2019, for example in the
absence of ratification. This is the subject of the bill that is submitted for your
consideration, presented on October 3 in the Council of Ministers. It aims to
give the Government the means to prepare for all contingencies, including the
absence of an agreement, by enabling it, where appropriate, to adopt the
necessary measures by order. The Government is fully aware that the use of
orders is a practice that, understandably, does not excite parliamentarians.
The choice of empowerment, which allows greater flexibility, is indispensable
here. It is necessary to take into account the need to be able to act very
quickly according to the evolution of the negotiations, which explains why the
way of the conclusion of bilateral agreements, too slow, is not at this stage
not an option. It will also be necessary to determine the actual content of the
measures according to those taken by the United Kingdom, but also by the
other Member States, such as Germany, which is preparing six draft laws,
and by the European Union itself. even. It will have to act in its field of
competence. We want to start quickly comparing our respective preparatory
work so as to ensure a shared understanding of the border between national
and European law, on the one hand, and to ensure that the various national
measures taken by Member States members are well coordinated, on the
other hand. The Government will remain conscious of the respect of article 38
of the Constitution and aware of the necessary balance to be held between
precisions of the provisions and necessary flexibility. More specifically, the bill
provides for two types of measures: those, the most numerous, necessary in
the absence of agreement; others, which are also necessary, even in the
event of an agreement to withdraw because of the necessary time-limits. All
these measures concern three major blocks of domains: the situation of
French nationals and, in general, French interests; the situation of the British
in France; the movement of people and goods. As regards the situation of
French nationals living in the United Kingdom who would return to France,
these measures will, in order to protect their interests in the event of
withdrawal without agreement, take into account certain benefits acquired by
French nationals during a period in the United Kingdom. before the date of its
withdrawal from the Union, for example in order to be able to claim a period of
activity across the Channel in the calculation of retirement in France, or to be
able to continue to take advantage in France of diplomas obtained in the
United Kingdom . This category of measures aims to preserve national
interests in a broad way. This is why the bill also contains measures to allow
French companies to pursue the transfer of defense products and materials
to the United Kingdom, or to allow French entities to access the systems.
third-country interbank settlement and settlement, or to continue to use
framework agreements in the area of financial services and to secure existing
contracts. These are technical areas, but I insist: UK entities will no longer
have access to the European financial passport. But we want current
contracts to be completed and French companies to maintain their access, for
example, to the UK foreign exchange market. Secondly, other measures
aim at regulating the situation of the British in France after the
withdrawal, in particular their right of entry and residence, the
employment of British nationals exercising legally at the date of
withdrawal a paid professional activity in France, the situation of staff
members and trainees of the French public service of British nationality,
or the application to British nationals residing in France at the time of
withdrawal of the legislation on social rights and social benefits. Such
measures would make it possible, for example, to prevent a British
citizen residing in France on 30 March 2019 from being found in an
irregular situation or from an employer in France to be held criminally
liable for the employment of a national. British unauthorised to work.
However, it is difficult at this stage to precisely determine the content of
these measures. We wish that the French in the United Kingdom, like
the British in France, benefit from the most favorable situation possible,
and therefore the closest to the existing one, but, of course, we will take
these measures subject to reciprocity. Finally, certain measures in the
bill concern the movement of people and goods. They will ensure the
continuity of transport through the Channel Tunnel or the necessary
controls for the entry of goods from the United Kingdom into our
territory. In this regard, certain measures will be necessary, even in the
case of agreement, to carry out construction or development of
premises, facilities or port, rail, airport and road infrastructure, which
will be required by December 31, 2020 by the reinstatement of cargo and
passenger controls to and from the United Kingdom. The following is the
outline of the bill that is before your special commission. The relatively limited
number of areas concerned, and therefore measures provided for by this draft
law, is explained by the division of powers between the European Union and
the Member States and, more generally, by the integration of European law
into our internal legal order. I would like to make it clear, rapporteur, that the
text fully takes into account the opinion sent to it by the Council of State. This
opinion enabled us to improve the text, in particular by specifying more clearly
the purpose of the measures envisaged along the lines suggested by him and
by removing from them a provision which was not necessary, concerning the
retention of British municipal councilors. In the current state of the law, the
Council of State has confirmed to us that the elected representatives of
British nationality will be able to continue their mandate until its term and that
it was therefore not appropriate to include a provision to this effect. The
Conseil d'État makes it clear in its opinion that, in this new wording, the text
complies with the constitutional requirements. The Government hoped that
this opinion would not be published so as not to give any sensible indication
to the other party of this negotiation, as is customary in the conduct of
international relations. I count on your shared concern to best protect our
interests in this arduous negotiation because unprecedented. It is indeed
strange to present to you an enabling bill that my dearest wish is that it never
come into force. Nevertheless, the current state of the negotiations requires
us to examine it. You asked me, Mr. Rapporteur, the reason for the delay of
twelve months for the adoption of the ordinances. The deadline will be shorter
for measures that must be adopted quickly; I am thinking, in particular, of the
adjustments needed to re-establish border controls. The duration is longer for
the other measures, although in principle the orders should come into force
on the effective withdrawal date. The twelve months give the Government
more flexibility in the event that the withdrawal would be delayed for a few
months, even if it is not discussed at present. I prefer that we be legally
armed to respond to all uncertainties. You asked me whether the British
who now have a right to permanent residence on our soil would keep it
if there is no agreement. No, because this status is linked to the fact
that these people come from a country of the European Union. Mr. Jean
Bizet, President. - Even for the British who have been living on our land
for more than five years? Nathalie Loiseau, Minister. - Of course. This
right to permanent residence comes from the status of national of the
Union. Without agreement, this right would disappear immediately. Of
course we want the measures to be as smart as possible, especially as
we have an interest in keeping British nationals on our soil. But let us
not forget the situation of our compatriots in the United Kingdom: let us
already see what measures will be taken by the British before revealing
ours. The words of the British Prime Minister are encouraging. The draft
withdrawal agreement contains specific measures: it is in our interest to have
it signed and ratified because it allows our respective nationals to continue
working, studying and residing as before. However, if there is no agreement, I
expect to know precisely what measures the British would take before
deciding ours. A delay before the issue of a residence permit or the extension
of the statutes would thus be possible. Various measures being conceivable,
wait for the British to present us theirs. You also asked me about the 1,715
British nationals who hold public office in our country. By definition, they can
not remain so. We will have to see how to continue to benefit from their
services. Most of these people teach English. A number of them have already
applied for French nationality, which is most of the time possible and relatively
simple. But a national of a third State can not be a civil servant. Mr. Jean
Bizet, President. - Would not contracts be possible? As for the sensitive
sectors, I do not see any solution. Nathalie Loiseau, Minister. - The use of
contracts can indeed be envisaged. On the other hand, I do not know that
British nationals are employed in sensitive sectors of the French civil service.
It is also a constant to prevent European nationals from being assigned to
such jobs. Mrs Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam. - You quoted Ms. May's reassuring
words. I also remind you that when you came to London, you said you were
confident. Are the current negotiations on the fate of the British settled in
France and the French settled in Britain dissociable from the fate reserved for
all other Europeans? What is the state of mind of the British on this issue? Mr.
Jean-Michel Houllegatte. - The opinion of the Council of State which has not
been communicated to us seems to draw the attention of the Government to
the incompatibility of some of the measures of preparation for withdrawal
which appear in this draft law with the European regulation. Have you
identified the points that will have to be the subject of a regulatory
adjustment? For example, customs controls would violate European
regulations if they were deported several kilometers. Mr Bruno Sido. - What
fate will be reserved for the some thousand European officials of British
nationality? I understood at the hearing of the Minister of Action and the
Public Accounts this morning that they would stay after the Brexit. If so, what
about the parallelism of forms with the British who are civil servants in
France? Mr. Didier Marie. - If the British accept the principle of reciprocity,
nothing will change for British nationals on our soil. But would such a situation
be compatible with European law if it is not the same in other countries of the
Union? The negotiations you have undertaken to link the French ports to the
North Sea - Mediterranean corridor are under way. You have achieved
progress for Dunkerque and Calais. But do not forget Dieppe and Le Havre.
Mrs. Maryvonne Blondin. - And Roscoff! Mr. Didier Marie. - Do the ordinances
provide for specific measures to ensure traffic between the Channel, Brittany
and the United Kingdom? For example, Dieppe has three daily connections
with the port of Newhaven and is heavily dependent on relations with Great
Britain. Mr. Jean Louis Masson. - On several occasions, the Law Commission
asked that the advice of the Council of State be communicated to
parliamentarians and successive governments have regularly replied that this
would now be the case. It is somewhat scandalous not to have sent this
notice for this empowerment project. The attitude of the Government and the
President of the Republic on Brexit is unclear. In last week's debate, I asked
you two questions, Minister, and you did not answer them, presumably by -
voluntary deafness . If we organize question sessions, it is to obtain precise
answers! I recalled that several referendums organized in various countries
have already been bypassed by the proponents of a Europe with a federalist
tendency. Today, it's the same thing: President Macron is at the forefront of
the coalition trying to sabotage Brexit by rotting the negotiations by
extravagant conditions, especially the desire to establish a customs border
inside. same from the United Kingdom. What would we say if we were asked
to restore the border separating Alsace-Moselle from the rest of France? It's
scandalous ! The proponents of the European Union are doing everything
they can to block the negotiations. We are faced with three hypotheses, the
first of which would be the conclusion of an agreement and the second the
absence of agreement. Last hypothesis: a new referendum with a result in
favor of the Union. The Lisbon Treaty provides that the distribution of seats is
degressively proportional. However, at present, this is not the case since
there is a distortion between Germany and France. At the last European
Council, new seats were awarded to respect the Lisbon Treaty. But what
would happen if Britain finally decided to stay in the Union? Will we continue
to violate the Treaty of Lisbon? Nathalie Loiseau, Minister. - The legendary
courtesy of the Senate is sometimes undermined ... Ms. Garriaud-Maylam, if
a withdrawal agreement is signed and ratified, the situation for the French
living in Britain will be exactly the same as for other European nationals. If
there is no agreement, the British authorities will decide how they intend to
proceed with the European citizens and nothing will force them to treat each
nation in the same way. Nevertheless, the situation will already be sufficiently
complex and the British authorities will undoubtedly be keen to apply the
same rules to all European countries. We will be careful that the treatment of
our nationals in Great Britain is as close as possible to the agreement we
have agreed upon. Mr Houllegatte, we have requested an exchange of
information between the European Commission and the Member States for
the national measures that we have to put in place. Thus, air traffic is a
European competence: in the absence of an agreement, the measures
proposed by the Commission would replace the current regime for air
transport between the United Kingdom and the European Union. With regard
to the customs control of goods, it is possible to consider deporting the place
of such checks elsewhere than at ports of entry. To do this, a Commission
authorization is necessary, which explains our current negotiations with it. I
am not far from sharing Mr Sido's remarks about European officials of British
nationality, but it is up to the European Commission to decide whether to
maintain them or not. Mr Juncker has decided to keep them in office, but no
new UK officials will be recruited in the future. In my opinion, this also implies
that current British officials will not be able to access the highest positions.
Moreover, a number of them took another nationality. Mr Bruno Sido. - I
understand the decision of Mr Juncker who does not want to put oil on the
fire. But in case of "hard Brexit", the maintenance of British European officials
would be unimaginable. Nathalie Loiseau, Minister. - In law, this would be
possible and the decision will be the exclusive responsibility of the European
Commission. On the other hand, there will no longer be a British
commissioner. Mr Bruno Sido. - All that would be missing! Nathalie Loiseau,
Minister. - The excellent British commissioner Julian King in charge of the
fight against terrorism can not be renewed at the end of the mandate of the
present Commission. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - When a national of a
Member State becomes a Commissioner, he forgets his nationality. Nathalie
Loiseau, Minister. - In the future, access to the highest European
administrative functions seems to me to be excluded for British citizens. Mr
Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - If Northern Ireland remained a member of
the Customs Union, what would happen to British officials? Nathalie Loiseau,
Minister. - The backstop plans to maintain regulatory alignment between north
and south Ireland and Northern Ireland's participation in the customs union.
But the people of Northern Ireland remain British citizens. If Britain becomes
a third country, we would be free to choose the status of its nationals. The
European Commission would only be empowered to decide whether to
introduce short-term visas for the British. Regarding the negotiation on the
North Sea-Mediterranean corridor, the first proposal of the European
Commission was not acceptable, since it ignored the French ports. So we
went into discussion with Commissioner Bulc. Integrating only Calais is not
enough. Let us be aware, however, that being part of a corridor does not only
bring benefits, but also obligations. We have to measure the balance between
each other before applying for a port. What measures will we take to ensure
the smooth flow of traffic? We are talking about the assumption of a no
withdrawal agreement or an agreement providing for the United Kingdom's
non-participation in the customs union. We do not know what will happen: in
the beginning, the United Kingdom no longer wanted to remain in the single
market or in the customs union. But since then, there have been hypotheses
including a temporary participation in the latter. We are waiting for a
stabilization of the British position. But the hypotheses I mentioned would
involve controls. And even if the United Kingdom remains in the customs
union but departs from the European regulations, it will be necessary to carry
out sanitary and regulatory controls. The fluidity can be ensured by the
establishment of parking areas and the most advanced technologies for the
control of goods, but also live animals, plants and agricultural products. The
hypothesis of carrying out these controls outside the entry points on the
national territory is to be explored. Senator Masson, you consider that the
non-communication of an opinion of the Council of State is proof that
something is not clear. It is just proof that we want to protect the interests of
our fellow citizens and our businesses. What you call extravagant conditions
is a concern. You are rightly talking about the Irish border, which would
become an external border. It is out of the question to make it the
uncontrolled gateway for goods from the United Kingdom and the rest of the
world. It would weaken the rights of European consumers and European
businesses who face unfair competition. We have agreed with the United
Kingdom to ensure that the border between Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland is not a physical boundary, in order to preserve the
agreements of Good Friday. Here is what Ms. May herself signed - I translate
from English: "In the absence of an agreed solution, the United Kingdom will
ensure that there are no regulatory barriers between Ireland and Ireland.
North and the United Kingdom, except that, as provided for by the 1998
agreements, the executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly agree that
there should be a regulatory difference between Ireland and the United
Kingdom. North and the rest of the United Kingdom. If another solution is not
possible, the UK will propose specific solutions for Northern Ireland. If there is
no agreed solution for these specific solutions, the United Kingdom will
maintain full alignment with the rules of the internal market and the customs
union which now or in the future allow for full cooperation between North and
South. the south of the island of Ireland. It is a commitment made by the
United Kingdom, that we ask it to translate into the agreement that we will
sign with it. You seem to think that most of our efforts are to derail Brexit. We
did not want it, it's true. But we respect it as a democratic decision of the
United Kingdom. Our efforts are to ensure that separation is orderly and that
our citizens and businesses are protected. We are not working on
assumptions such as a new referendum at any time, because the British
government has not considered it - we have enough work like that! You would
like to know what we would do if the United Kingdom, by extraordinary,
remained in the Union, concerning the representation of France in the
European Parliament. I would like to share with you my surprise, when I
noticed, when I took office, that, as you rightly said, the number of European
MEPs fixed in 2013 did not correspond to our demographic weight in the
European Union. I even wondered if we had obtained an advantage in
exchange for which we would have accepted this insufficient representation. I
did not find it. I took advantage of the British withdrawal to negotiate first with
the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, then with its
plenary assembly, and I got five more seats. If, by the extraordinary, the
United Kingdom decided to return to the European Union - a hypothesis that
nothing can support today - we should put back on the trade the distribution
between Member States, knowing that everyone wishes to make his positions
heard, and c is normal. But as we speak, there is no question that there will
be European elections on British soil. Mr. Jean Louis Masson. - You do not
tell the truth. In June, the European Council wrote in black and white that if
the United Kingdom does not leave, the current distribution, taken in violation
of the Lisbon Treaty, would be retained. Do not dodge the second case, which
is mentioned in a document signed by France. You were there! Do not reap
the benefit of having increased the number of seats in one case, if you do not
agree to take responsibility for what is provided in the other case. Nathalie
Loiseau, Minister. - Thank you, senator, for having suggested in a short time
that I suffered from deafness, that I lacked intelligence or sincerity ... In any
case, what was said at the time of the European Council would obviously be
modified in the event of a British decision to remain a member of the
European Union, since it would be necessary - but we swim in full surrealism
- to put an end to the countdown, which would require a specific decision of
the European Council unanimously. Mrs. Gisèle Jourda. - When will the five
additional seats be allocated to France? Ms Nathalie Loiseau, Minister. -
From 2019. Mr. Bruno Sido. - Do other countries get seats? Nathalie Loiseau,
Minister. - All British seats are not redistributed, so that a smaller Union has a
smaller Parliament. Some in northern Europe argued for a dry decrease,
considering that there are no small economies. Other countries earn one or
three seats. We are the country that wins the most. Mr Bruno Sido. What was
the justification for these five fewer seats in his day? Nathalie Loiseau,
Minister. - I searched for it, and I did not find it. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski,
rapporteur. - I do not intend to deal with this question in my report. We are
moving away a lot from the ordinances. On the other hand, I will talk about
maritime corridors, although they are not targeted, since they come under
European jurisdiction. I will not talk about the Irish border, nor, of course,
question the British vote, which I regret but respect. The choice of whether to
place the border in the middle of the sea is a political choice; Note, however,
that Ms. May does not have a majority on any of the three alternatives. But
back to the subject of the text, namely the measures to take, especially the
emergency measures to be taken in case of no deal. Minister, my last
question was about the social security, pensions, unemployment insurance
coverage of the French and the British who worked on both sides of the
Channel; but it is better that you answer me at length in writing. I will need
your answer for my report. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - This morning, the
Minister of Action and Public Accounts made it clear that for forty or forty-five
years, it was the first time that France would have to protect the internal
market. The backstop is an attack on the sovereignty of a state, but there is
little alternative. The least painful of course would be to establish controls in
the Irish Sea. You touched on the subject of the number of seats on the very
random assumption that the British would come back on their vote. It should
also open a new discussion on all kinds of issues, including the British rebate.
Ms. Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam. - Inasmuch as President Macron had spoken of
transnational lists, could it possibly be envisaged to create a specific
constituency to represent European or French expatriates? I had asked that
question in writing, but to my knowledge I did not get an answer. Mr. Jean-
Michel Houllegatte. - Let us not forget that between 2010 and 2014, the
number of European parliamentarians was 766, a number that the Lisbon
Treaty reduced to 751 - 750 plus the president. France has kept its 74
parliamentarians, the United Kingdom has kept 73, while Germany has lost 3,
from 99 to 96. Here is the history of the number of 74 parliamentarians.
Nathalie Loiseau, Minister. - We wanted to take advantage of the vacancies
left by the British to create a European constituency to be filled by
transnational lists, but we have not been followed by the European
Parliament. This hypothesis remains open for 2024, Merkel having rallied late
in the course of the summer. For others, we returned to the national
constituency adopted by the vast majority of Member States, and abandoned
the Euro-regions, which had not proven effective in bringing MEPs closer to
voters. The lists will have to include candidates as representative as possible
of the variety of the French established in metropolis, in Overseas, and, why
not, French established abroad. But this is the responsibility of the political
parties. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - Thank you.

Meeting on Tuesday, 30 October 2018, under the chairmanship of Mr Jean


Bizet, the Special Committee examined the report of Mr Ladislas Poniatowski
and drew up his text on Bill 9 (2018-2019) empowering the Government to
make by order the measures of preparation for the withdrawal of the United
Kingdom from the European Union. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - Our next item
is the examination of the report by Ladislas Poniatowski on the draft enabling
legislation which our special committee is responsible for examining. I
welcome the presence of many colleagues, who denotes the importance of
the subject. I would like to thank the rapporteur very sincerely for the work he
has done in the very short time available to us, as well as all the members of
the committee who have taken action on this issue. As I pointed out to Mrs
Loiseau during her audition, Brexit puts us in a paradoxical situation: after
more than forty years of overlapping and convergence, we have to work on
the disembodiment and learn how to manage the divergence with the least
damage possible. This major geostrategic mistake is attributable to the British
alone and has caused a shock wave, with the question of the border between
Ulster and the Republic of Ireland. We must also deal with the great
uncertainty that hangs over the outcome of the negotiations of a withdrawal
agreement. The hearing of the United Kingdom Ambassador has shown that
the situation remains, at this stage, still very static. Beyond the affirmation of
the will to find an agreement and the positive conclusion on a very large
number of points under discussion, we see that the Irish question still remains
the Gordian knot of the negotiation. I also remember from the ambassador
the positive and reassuring message about the situation of the French and
other European citizens settled in the United Kingdom, and the perceptible
concern of British nationals living in France. In any case, we need to prepare
for all the assumptions, including the lack of agreement on the terms of
withdrawal. This is what the Government intends to do through the Enabling
Bill it submitted to the Senate. It should be noted that the measures to be
taken are not only legislative in nature. Many of them will be from the
European Union or will be regulatory. At the same time, all preparatory work
must be conducted by the public or private stakeholders concerned. The
hearing of Mr Darmanin rather reassured us: the French customs
administration anticipated the difficulties. The message was in any case
clearly passed to the ministers during their hearings. We will renew it in public
session. On the legislative side, the role of our special commission is to
ensure that the authority that the government seeks from Parliament is
specific, as required by section 38 of the Constitution. For now, the
government is not exactly on our line. The uncertainty over the outcome of
the discussions with the United Kingdom justifies a need for flexibility. The
content of the orders will, moreover, be subject to reciprocity of the measures
taken by the United Kingdom. It will also be conditioned by the measures
adopted in the same direction by the other Member States; France will have
to seek harmonisation with the large Member States, in particular Germany. It
is therefore this difficult balance between precision and flexibility that we must
look for through the report and the amendments we are going to examine. Mr
Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - I would like to thank our colleagues who
worked in the follow-up group on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom and
the re-foundation of the European Union. The National Assembly has only
been working on this issue since the beginning of the year, whereas we have
for two years conducted numerous hearings and issued a number of progress
reports. I have been a member of Parliament for a long time, and I can assure
you that the work of the Senate is thorough. The National Assembly has still
not appointed a rapporteur for the draft law enabling it to review the text on
December 15. I also want to thank Jean Bizet, who chairs the monitoring
group, which will continue to exist after Brexit. We are on the eve of the exit of
the United Kingdom from Europe, which will take place on March 30, 2019.
Will Brexit be hard or soft? The last auditions did not reassure me. As for the
last European Council, it went wrong: while it had to lead to a withdrawal
agreement, it could not conclude. I was not optimistic. The Checkers plan
proposed by Theresa May was in fact absolutely not acceptable. I would like
to stress the role of Michel Barnier, who has continued to meet heads of
state, heads of government and parliamentarians. Thanks to him, the Twenty-
Seven remained united on the issue of Brexit, while they are divided on many
other subjects. Theresa May hoped to deal with a divided front. Just before
the summer, she had met separately Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel,
but his strategy did not work. As we look at this bill, the greatest uncertainty
remains with the possibility of concluding a withdrawal agreement with the
United Kingdom. This point should be clarified by the end of November.
However, even if a withdrawal agreement were finally concluded, it would still
have to be ratified by both the European Parliament and the United Kingdom
Parliament. Things will certainly be going well in the European Parliament; on
the other hand, it may not be the same on the British side. Theresa May
endorsed Michel Barnier's backstop proposal, but was later rejected by both
his government and his party. She had to give up this proposal in Parliament.
It could therefore be, even if an agreement were found, that it can not be
ratified, which would bring us back to the no deal hypothesis. This is why the
Government is proposing to take a series of measures by order. It is a
question of settling the situation of the British who reside or work in France,
that of the French who are in the same situation in the United Kingdom and
the emergency measures to take to manage the flows of people and goods in
the harbour infrastructures , rail, airport and road. Parliament never likes
orders. But all governments use it in case of emergency ... I consider that
here the urgency is proven, which makes me propose to you to accept the
authorisation requested by the Government. However, accepting the principle
of the ordinances does not mean giving a blank check to the order of its own.
I deeply regret that the Government has not published the opinion of the
Council of State; the argument of the necessary discretion on the course of
negotiations with the United Kingdom does not seem to me to be relevant. In
doing so, he has created a mystery where there is really none. In addition,
any authorisation must meet a requirement of precision. The Constitutional
Council watches over it. My amendments go in that direction. This is not to
hinder the action of the Government, but rather to consolidate it legally. I will
also propose amendments confirming the temporary nature of the measures
to be taken, pending bilateral agreements between France and the United
Kingdom. With regard to the authorisation periods, the Government proposes
a period of 12 months to Articles 1 and 2 and a period of 6 months to Article
3. This asymmetry is paradoxical, especially for Articles 1 and 2 which are
intended to to apply in case of non-agreement. The Government tells us that
it is urgent, but then gives itself one year to act ... I will propose to reduce the
deadline for the submission of ratification bills, as provided for in Article 4.
Certain decisions must be taken very quickly . Finally, the bill is not intended
to solve all the problems related to Brexit. Some questions do not fall within
our remit, although many of you are concerned. These are, first of all,
questions to be resolved at European Union level. Thus, the problems
relating to air transport, fishing, medicines or the possible decision to
reinstate short-stay visas for British nationals are the responsibility of the
European Union. These questions are all crucial, and you should not hesitate
to discuss them during the public debate in order to express your concerns to
the Government. It would be useless, however, to table any amendments. I
then think, and more generally, of the aid measures for companies, in
particular SMEs weakened by Brexit, which will have to be considered. For
example, Ireland wants to introduce low-interest loans for its SMEs. The
Netherlands has also put in place a support system for SMEs. I do not
propose anything, because financial aid would fall under the ax of article 40 of
the Constitution, but we will nevertheless have to raise this subject in session.
As indicated by Gérald Darmanin, Customs has recruited 700 customs
officers: 250 have already been recruited, 350 will be in 2019 and 100 in
2020. I do not know if this number will be sufficient. This is why the Brexit
follow-up group will continue to have an important role to play. Other
countries will recruit more. I am thinking of the Netherlands, which has
provided for 1,000 additional customs officers. Ireland, meanwhile, should
hire 900. Yet neither the Republic of Ireland, nor the United Kingdom, nor any
of the twenty-seven Member States wants a border with Ulster! Nevertheless,
the situation will change: 80% of commercial traffic between Ireland and
Europe passes through England; tomorrow, it will not be the case. Gérald
Darmanin tried to reassure us by referring to the information meetings
organized by the regional customs directorates for SMEs. The main regions
concerned are Île-de-France, Hauts-de-France, Normandy, Auvergne-Rhône-
Alpes and Occitanie. However, these efforts have not paid. The minister had
invited hundreds of companies to a meeting organised in the Hauts-de-
France: only 40 came ... But 30 000 French companies have a commercial
activity with the United Kingdom. The administration has done its job, but the
economic world is not fully aware of the transformations to come ... According
to the European Commission, five countries are today the best prepared
Brexit: France, Germany , the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland. These
states have already taken legislative action and recorded budget
expenditures. This means that many other countries, less concerned, it is
true, have not done anything or are late .Other problems, which are not
part of the Enabling Bill, will need to be addressed. I want to talk about
the migratory issue, which is crucial. Migrants are already trying to hide
in trucks to reach the United Kingdom. What will happen in the future if
traffic is slowed down by controls? In the Hauts-de-France, it is planned
to create, 9 km from the tunnel, a parking area with sheds, which could
attract those trying to cross the Channel. The report also deals with
other issues, including that of the British municipal councillors, about
900 people. The Government confirmed to us that they would remain
councillors until the next municipal elections in 2020. Mr. Jean Bizet,
President. - By the end of November at the latest, the UK will have to make a
decision on Brexit. After that date, it will then be administratively too late to
start the countdown. In addition, no date has been set for a European Council
specifically dedicated to Brexit since Theresa May has put no tangible
proposal on the table. The Senate must be pragmatic. Of course, we do not
like the Government to use the ordinances. But if we have to be flexible, we
must also demand clarification. The Government is for the moment rather
deaf to our requests ... I hope that it will evolve on the question. Some issues
are not part of the bill. The European Affairs Committee has appointed a
working group consisting of Pascal Allizard, Didier Marie and Jean-François
Rapin, three elected members of the Channel coast, as the European
Commission must review the mechanism for interconnection in Europe. The
Commission wants to wait until 2023 to do so, whereas we believe that it
should act now, with Brexit having changed the situation. Trade flows
currently flowing through the United Kingdom may take other paths. With
regard to business support, some countries have already taken decisions to
take account of Brexit: for example, the Netherlands has lowered the
corporate tax rate from 25% to 22.5%. By the way, hi! Our country should
also work to remain agile, responsive and competitive. The particular era we
are witnessing shows that the Senate was right to set up a follow-up group on
Brexit in July 2016, one month after the referendum. In view of the issues we
have just discussed, this monitoring group will also have important work to do
after Brexit. Mr. Jean-François Rapin. - The Senate must debate tonight in
session of the European management of the migration crisis. The United
Kingdom has already announced its intention to move towards a
chosen immigration, with the consequences that this may have for our
country in terms of rejected persons. . On the movement of products, it
seems to me that the bonded transit system allows a sealed Irish truck
to transport goods to Europe through the United Kingdom without
being taxed. Otherwise, our mission on the rescue of the corridor does
not make sense ... I would like to be given a precise answer on this
point. Mr. Didier Marie. - I congratulate the rapporteur for the work he has
done in a very short time. France is certainly one of the five good pupils of
Europe, but we could have had more time to examine this bill of enablement.
Politically, we come to the end of the race. The next European summit in
December is the last meeting before Brexit. Theresa May does not have a
majority for any of the solutions she could choose. If miracles are always
possible in politics, ... Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - Less and less ! Mr. Didier
Marie. - ... we must also prepare for a no deal. That's why urgency requires
the use of prescriptions. I regret the opacity of the Government on the advice
of the Council of State. Everyone knows, when it's fuzzy, it's because there is
a wolf ... We can be concerned, especially since some provisions present a
constitutional risk. On the situation of persons, the principle must be
reciprocity. With regard to ports, our mission will make proposals. It can be
considered that there will be sufficient customs officers. On the other hand,
the account is not there for the agents in charge of the phytosanitary and
veterinary controls: it would be necessary at least 150 according to some
experts, whereas one announces us 40 recruitments. What does the
Government plan for financial support to support SMEs? What does he intend
to do with the European Union to mobilize specific funds to support business
transformation? As regards the control of prescriptions, the proposed
ratification periods may be too long. The rapporteur has tabled an
amendment on the subject which I am in favor. We will have to implement an
order control mission pending a possible agreement between the European
Union and the United Kingdom or a bilateral agreement. Mr. Jean Louis
Masson. - I will not make any substantive observations on the text, because I
am almost the only one in this Chamber to be of my opinion ... On the other
hand, a large part of the French are of my opinion and are not satisfied with
the European Union in its current form. On form, I want to return to the lack of
transmission of the opinion of the Council of State. In the past, I had tried to
advance to the Law Commission the idea of making the communication by
the Government to Parliament of the opinions of the Council of State
obligatory. I was told that it was not necessary because this transmission was
usually done. We can clearly see that it is precisely when this document is
needed that the problem arises ... I recognise the right of the Government to
refuse to communicate this opinion. It is also our right to draw the
consequences. According to the press, the Council of State has reservations
about the constitutionality of the Enabling Act. The Government, through Ms.
Loiseau, put forward misleading pretexts for not providing us with details of
the orders. It is scandalous that we as parliamentarians agree to vote a text
without knowing all the ins and outs. Can a citizen file a priority question of
constitutionality (QPC) on the basis of a formal defect? According to some,
the Constitutional Council examines only the QPCs raising a problem of
constitutionality affecting the substance of the text. Mr. Richard Yung. - Mr
rapporteur, I found you pessimistic! In my opinion, negotiations will be
completed. We are at the moment in the hardening phase, but it is not
excluded that the calendar is prolonged. What would happen then to the
authorisation periods provided for in the text? Mr. Olivier Henno. - For my
part, it seemed to me that the rapporteur, whose work I salute, was rather
lucid! Jean-François Rapin raised an essential question: that of measuring
reciprocity. We will have to adjust to the decisions taken by the United
Kingdom. How to measure this reciprocity, particularly on the issue of
migration or the circulation of goods? Ms. Fabienne Keller. - I too congratulate
the rapporteur on the quality of his work. I want to emphasise the pragmatism
of the British. They will be all the more responsive as they will no longer be
subject to European harmonisation criteria. They will regain their freedom, as
evidenced by Theresa May's recent budget announcements. She drops
ballast to respond to the concerns of her fellow citizens. On the question of
reciprocity, should we evaluate it alone or at Twenty-Seven? Mr Bruno Sido. -
I also welcome the rapporteur, who has done a lot of work. The British are
actually pragmatic and do not ask as many questions as we do. It's been a
long time since there were French people in Britain and British people in
France! I do not understand why President Pompidou absolutely wanted the
United Kingdom to enter the common market; General de Gaulle did not want
it! The French who have chosen to work in the United Kingdom must assume
their responsibilities; As for the British who preferred the sun of France to the
freshness of Britain, let them do the same! We must not give any gifts to the
United Kingdom because it was he who opened hostilities. The question of
the number of customs officers is not one: it is enough to recruit or to transfer
personnel ... One gets a mountain of questions which are not really worth it!
The British want to leave the European Union and lean towards the no deal ...
Wanting to extend the negotiation time is very French, but the Twenty-Seven
do not necessarily think like us. Let's go ahead without a qualm, and without
worrying: we'll get out of this situation! Mr. Eric Bocquet. - As noted by
Fabienne Keller, the British are pragmatic. They are advancing step by
step, with confidence, while the European Union wants a global
architecture right now that responds to all the problems. The words of
the United Kingdom ambassador were reassuring: even in the event of
no deal, the rights of European citizens living and working on British
soil will be preserved. His tone was not warlike: it is not the Hundred
Years War that starts again! On the eve of the Normandy landings,
Churchill had told De Gaulle that when Britain had to choose between
the open sea and Europe, she would always choose the open sea ...
Brexit destabilised the English for a few days. then made an
opportunity. Cleared of the constraints that Europe wanted to impose
on it, the United Kingdom will open up even more to the world: it has for
that time zones - from Hong Kong to Bermuda -, the English language,
financial engineering ... Ms. Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam. - I share what was
said by Eric Bocquet. I have lived in the United Kingdom for thirty-five years: it
is a hard-working people, who knows how to seize opportunities. Even pro-
remain politicians like the director of Chatham House, the Royal Institute of
International Affairs, want to move on and have become pro-Brexit. To come
back to de Gaulle, who did not want Britain in the common market, is to
maintain a counterproductive atmosphere. The English press has always
been hostile to us: it continues to fuel anti-French sentiment. We must pay
attention to what we are saying as politicians. The choices of French
nationals in Great Britain and Britain in France were made according to a
given context, which favored the exchange of rights. The British settled in
France sold everything, restored villages in our country, contributed to the
local economy: if they had to go back to Britain, they would not have the
means to buy anything . Jean-François Rapin is right, Britain will want a
chosen immigration, because its pragmatism pushes it to prefer workers who
will contribute to its economy. Last week was announced the creation of a £ 9
million fund to help needy Europeans living in Britain to apply for permanent
residence. It's a small step, but it's not enough. A no deal will be especially
problematic for France: many young French go to work, certainly for small
wages, in Britain, which knows almost full employment: it improves our
statistics on the number of unemployed. We need to be more pragmatic, like
the English, who are almost ready for post-Brexit. French companies are not,
as the rapporteur has pointed out. As parliamentarians, we must alert our
citizens and encourage them to move forward. I also approve of Didier
Marie's comments on the reciprocal rights of individuals. I tabled an
amendment on this subject. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Mr Rapin,
you have put your finger on a sensitive point, the migration crisis - Theresa
May has also mentioned the immigration chosen. This subject may be raised
in public session. This does not directly concern the text, but we can not
escape it and we must talk about it. With regard to your question about
Ireland, you are right from a legal point of view; containers carrying goods for
the European market will be able to cross the United Kingdom without being
taxed. Ireland has understood the situation well: that is why it is preparing
itself by helping SMEs to opt for transit by sea to French ports. Opposite, we,
too, must be receptive; this is an opportunity for the Norman ports, which are
- as we can see on a map - close to Ireland. Let's be the home of the traffic
that leaves Ireland. Mr. Marie, you are right about the delays being too short. -
I also agree with your political analysis, I think that Theresa May will not find a
majority, whatever the scenario. I thought for a moment that she could do it
with Jeremy Corbyn by leaving some of the Conservatives and some of the
ten elected majority members of Northern Ireland, but I do not believe it
anymore. On the opacity of the Government, you say that the lack of
transmission of the opinion of the Council of State, contrary to what
governments have always done since 2015, hides something fishy. In
general, it is true, but, in this case, it is not even the case! Madame Loiseau
did not want to hear anything on this point. In addition, the Constitutional
Council censors enabling laws when they are not specific enough. Many of
my amendments therefore tend to clarify the content of the orders. I know that
the Government was moved, but we must ask for more details in the
authorisations. Reciprocity is a central notion that I emphasize in my report
and in my amendments. On the health dimension of imports, I intend to take
up an amendment by Mr Duplomb by correcting one of my amendments.
Without doubt the forty full-time equivalents (FTEs) foreseen will not suffice,
especially since only twelve will be veterinary, but all will not be frozen.
Parliament, including the Brexit Follow-up Group, has a role to play. It's up to
us to be vigilant when considering the budget. Finally, I consider that there
are too few ratifications of ordinances, and that is the responsibility of both
the Government and the Parliament. In general, the Government submits the
ratification bills in due time, in accordance with the Constitution, but these are
never included in the agenda. This, I repeat, is shared between Parliament
and the Government; we therefore share the responsibility for this situation.
Of the sixty ordinances that were to be ratified in 2016 and 2017, only seven
were. The Brexit follow-up group therefore has a role to play on this subject;
Parliament to be vigilant. Mr. Masson, you are right on the substance, the
parliamentarians do not like the orders and I know I can count on you to point
this out in public. Regarding the QPC, any citizen, including you, can address
it to the Constitutional Council in the context of a dispute. Mr. Jean Louis
Masson. - Admittedly, but the Council considers admissible only the QPCs
concerning a substantive defect, not those which concern a deformity, for
example the conditions in which the text was adopted. Mr Ladislas
Poniatowski, rapporteur. - You are right, the priority question of
constitutionality must be on a substantive issue, namely the infringement of
the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Mr. Jean Bizet,
President. - The Court of Cassation and the Council of State exert a filter
function on these questions. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Mr Yung,
you are optimistic, you think there will be an extension of time and an
agreement will be found. For my part, I do not see how ... The unanimity of
the European Council is needed to extend the deadline beyond 30 March
2019, and I do not believe it at all. On the other hand, if an agreement is
reached, there is no need for a second extension, we will have one year and
nine months to resolve all the issues raised in the report. That said, I am
more worried than you; first we need an agreement on the withdrawal and
then a vote in the British Parliament, which does not seem obvious to me. Mr.
Henno, there are no formal provisions for assessing reciprocity, but that's in
everyone's mind. In the first two articles of the text, all the measures provided
are subject to reciprocity. I think we must proceed with confidence, the
interest of France is to defend the French and the interest of the United
Kingdom is to defend the British, which argues for a reciprocal agreement for
students, assets or retirees settled on both sides. Here again, the Brexit
follow-up group will have a central role to play. Mr Sido, I agree, the French
who have decided to live in the United Kingdom and the British settled in
France must make their choice, but your presentation is too negative. It must
continue. I hope that after the Brexit, French people will work or study there
and that British people will still come to France. Mr. Laurent Duplomb. - And
that they will invest ... Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - I have tabled
some amendments to protect the French settled in the United Kingdom and
the British installed in France, even for those who will settle after the Brexit.
Mr. Bocquet, you say that the British are pragmatic and that we must not seek
a global answer, underestimated Cartesian. I agree, you have to be
pragmatic. Mr. Bizet comes back from England where he was impressed by
business people who are preparing for Brexit. British finance will lose the
financial passport and no longer have the right to offer its products on
the European market, but it has already devised alternatives. The United
Kingdom will become a third country and it hopes to be able to continue
to enjoy the benefits of belonging to Europe while at the same time
leaving the United Kingdom. The firmness of the Twenty-Seven in this
respect is a good thing; if the British win on all sides of the bargain, it
would be too much an incentive to imitate them for other countries. Mr.
Jean Bizet, President. - I thank the rapporteur, who has plunged pragmatically
into this subject! Examination of Articles Motions Mr. Jean Louis Masson. -
Motion No. COM-1 tends to oppose the objection of inadmissibility. The
national press of Tuesday, October 16, 2018 confirmed that the Government
refused to make public the opinion of the Council of State on the draft
Enabling Order on Brexit. That's right ; the members of the special
commission of the Senate who asked for this opinion did not obtain it. Clearly,
the Government hoped that the Senate would not be informed of the State
Council's reservations about this bill. It is a lack of loyalty to parliamentarians,
who are asked to vote on a text without knowing the ins and outs. Moreover, it
is contrary to customary practice, for, if the Government is in fact not obliged
to publish the opinion of the Council of State, it has become customary
practice. Anyway, the press was aware of this opinion, made on September
27, 2018. According to the newspaper Le Monde, the Council of State regrets
that the bill only lists the headings of the areas that could give rise to an
order, but without specifying, in most cases, the scope of the measures
envisaged. The Government explains these choices with the aim of keeping
France's position in the negotiations under way, while preserving its room for
manoeuver. According to the Council of State, the Constitution obliges the
Government to inform Parliament of the purpose of the measures envisaged
with sufficient precision. While admitting that the Government's project fits
into a very particular context, the Conseil d'État considers, at the stage before
it, that compliance with this constitutional requirement presupposes further
clarification of the statement of the purpose of the measures. . That is why I
moved this motion to oppose the objection of inadmissibility. Mr Ladislas
Poniatowski, rapporteur. - I remind you that the Government is not obliged to
publish the opinions of the Council of State on its bills. Mr. Jean Louis
Masson. - I know it, I just said it! Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - In
addition, my amendments aim at clarifying the purposes of the powers to
legislate by ordinances, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the
Constitutional Council. Motion No. COM-1 was not adopted. Mr. Jean Louis
Masson. - Motion No. COM-2 tends to oppose the previous question. The
website of the weekly Le Point summarises very well the duplicity of the
negotiators of the European Union in the Brexit case. Under the title "Brexit,
this negotiation which is not one", this periodical explains that, despite an
apparent good will, the European Union does not seek to really negotiate; in
fact, the Europeans have made their demands straight away and they refuse
any discussion. These requirements are based on four points: the refusal to
treat separately the movement of people, goods, services and capital; the
status of European nationals residing in Great Britain; the financial balance
and the payment by Great Britain of projects already committed; the refusal of
any physical boundary between Northern Ireland and the rest of the island.
European negotiators know very well that this last condition is, by itself, an
almost insurmountable obstacle, because, at the same time, they want to
create a physical border with the rest of Britain. That is tantamount to forcing
the British to accept a cut-off from their country, which would literally be cut in
half by a real border. Point summarises very well the purpose of the leaders:
they absolutely want the British to lose all their benefits and they live less
well, all that they regret their departure. On the eve of the European elections,
their sole purpose is to make our fellow citizens believe that the move
towards a federal Europe would be the only common sense solution for the
future. Thus, the current stalemate of the Brexit negotiations is largely due to
the political strategy of the leaders of the European Union. Hence this motion
to oppose the previous question. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - I
recall that the previous question means that we oppose the whole text or that
there is no need to continue the deliberation. I am totally against this motion
because this bill is necessary to take the consequences of the withdrawal of
the United Kingdom from the European Union. France will have to act quickly
to preserve its national interests, including economic interests, but also to
protect the situation of the French present in the United Kingdom and the
interests of the British present in France. Unfavorable opinion.Mr Bruno Sido.
"If he were in the government, Mr. Masson would do exactly the same thing.
We do not know how things will evolve, so it is impossible to present ultra-
precise authorizations. They are necessarily wide to preserve the leeway of
the Government. Motion No. COM-2 was not adopted. Additional Article
before Article 1 Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - I recognize that the
number of French seats in the European Parliament is a very interesting
subject, but I must say that this question, raised by Amendment No. COM-3,
is out of order here. Mr. Jean Louis Masson. - Not quite, because if the Brexit
negotiations do not succeed, we will be in complete contradiction with the
Lisbon Treaty. Proponents of a federally oriented Europe trample the
sovereignty of member states to impose a kind of unique thinking. Thus, the
result of several referendums has been bypassed by the proponents of this
unique thought, who do not hesitate to flout the will of the voters as soon as it
does not go in their direction. Today, President Macron is at the forefront of
the coalition trying to torpedo Brexit by rotting bargaining. Here again, it is a
question of disavowing universal suffrage by pushing the British to organize a
new referendum. On the eve of the European elections, the aim is to make
our fellow citizens believe that the move towards a federal Europe would be
the only possible solution for the future. Instead of sabotaging Brexit, France
should instead claim its fair share in the distribution of seats in the European
Parliament. Currently, each of the six Maltese deputies represents only
69,352 inhabitants, while each of the seventy-four French deputies
represents 883,756 inhabitants. Worse still, France has, in total violation of
the Treaty of Lisbon, a ratio of inhabitants per seat much more unfavorable
than Germany. Moreover, if the opponents of Brexit reached their goals, this
injustice to the detriment of France would remain. Hence this amendment,
which is not totally independent of Brexit. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski,
rapporteur. - This question is irrelevant in the context of this text.
Unfavourable opinion. Amendment No. COM-3 is not adopted. Article 1 Mr
Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Amendment No. COM-4 is a deletion
amendment. WORK IN COMMITTEE - 149 - Mr Jean Louis Masson. - Two
conceptions of Europe are opposed: on the one hand, a Europe of Nations
respecting the sovereignty of the Member States and the choices of each
democratically elected government, and, on the other hand, a Europe with a
federalist tendency, which tramples the sovereignty of the Member States to
impose the unique thinking of the pseudo-elites. The result of several
referendums has already been bypassed by the proponents of this unique
thought, who do not hesitate to flout the will of the voters as soon as it does
not go in their direction. Today, President Macron is at the forefront of the
coalition trying to sabotage Brexit by rotting bargaining. Here again, it is a
question of disavowing universal suffrage by pushing the British to organize a
new referendum. On the eve of the European elections, the aim is to make
our fellow citizens believe that the move towards a federal Europe would be
the only possible solution for the future. Messrs. Are Macron, Juncker and
Barnier in good faith when they claim to negotiate fair and honest terms of
exit, while, at the same time, they demand the creation of a customs border
within the United Kingdom to to disjoin Northern Ireland? It is as
Machiavellian as if, tomorrow, Europe asked France to create a customs
border within our territory, for example by separating Alsace-Lorraine from the
rest of the territory. All the problems that would justify taking emergency
measures by order are clearly due to the bad will of the leaders of the
European Union and the action of President Macron, who organized a real
coalition to try to rot the negotiations. on the Brexit. We must not endorse this
policy, in which a few of those who believe in unique thinking pride
themselves on giving lessons in democracy to countries like Hungary or Italy,
whose governments are nevertheless elected in a perfectly democratic way.
Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - This article as well as Articles 2 and 3
are indispensable, because France must be concerned about the British
present on its soil, as the United Kingdom must be concerned about the fate
of the French present on his. Unfavourable opinion. Amendment No. COM-4
is not adopted. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Through my
Amendment No. COM-10, I introduce more precision in the authorizations.
Article 1 of the draft law draws the consequences of Brexit in the absence of
agreement on the situation of the British in France and the preservation of
economic activities and the flow of goods and people. In addition, I rectify my
amendment by inserting an additional paragraph concerning the purposes of
the Ordinance, namely "to guarantee a high level of health security in
France". . This allows Mr. Duplomb's amendment to be repeated. Mr. Laurent
Duplomb. - I therefore withdraw my amendment No. COM26. I am in favour of
this provision, which makes perfect sense in the face of two lies by Mr.
Darmanin. On the one hand, he claimed that all the posts requested by the
Ministry of Agriculture to control British products imported into France would
have been granted, while out of the 90 FTEs requested, only 40 have been
created. On the other hand, he argued that it was only a matter of controlling
incoming products, while outgoing products had to be certified to the United
Kingdom. It is estimated that, according to Brexit terms, an additional 80 to
900 persons would be required to perform these control functions. Mr
Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - But the certification of the products does
not necessarily take place at the borders. Mr. Laurent Duplomb. - Absolutely, I
did not say that, but today, 130 people are assigned to this task. Amendment
No. COM-10, as amended, was adopted. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski,
rapporteur. - My Amendment No. COM16 concerns the case of British
employees called to work in France after Brexit. Indeed, the bill only deals
with the case of British employees already settled in France, but the world will
not stop shooting the day after March 30; British employees will continue to
move to France, as British companies will inevitably locate themselves in
order not to cut themselves off from their market. Mr. Didier Marie. - As much
as we can consider that we must allow employees settled in France to stay, I
wonder about the compatibility of such a provision with European law
concerning employees who would come after the agreement. Should not this
be rather an agreement between the European Union and the United
Kingdom? Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - You are right, it will concern
the British settling everywhere on the European territory, but I defend the
economic attractiveness of France and I want to show that these workers are
welcome. Mr. Didier Marie. - I understand the purpose of the provision and I
share it, but is it compatible with European law? Our group will therefore
abstain on this amendment. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - The
European Parliament risks having to adopt a similar measure to settle the
working conditions of the British who will settle on European soil. WORK IN
COMMITTEE - 151 - Ms Fabienne Keller. - Community law on this subject is
a nebula, and it is possible that the present text will be telescope with a
European text adopted in the meantime on this question. Mr. Jean Bizet,
President. - Certainly, but we are only at the stage of empowerment. Mr
Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - In addition, there is an urgent need to deal
with this subject, because reciprocity must be taken into account ... Mr Jean
Bizet, President. - ... and harmonization. Mr. Didier Marie. - Is this
amendment valid for the period from 30 March to the possible signature of an
agreement? Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Absolutely. This can take
the form of a bilateral agreement between France and the United Kingdom or
a European Union harmonization measure for its entire territory. Amendment
No. COM-16 was adopted, the Socialist and Republican group abstaining. Mr
Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - My amendment No. COM17 is based on
the same principle, but deals with the recognition of professional
qualifications. This applies before and after Brexit and is conditioned to
reciprocity. Amendment No. COM-17 was adopted, the Socialist and
Republican group abstaining.Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - My
Amendment No. COM18 applies to the same principle to access to social
protection. Mr. Richard Yung. - This implies an agreement with social security.
Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Yes, it will be a little complicated,
because there is a question of financial compensation between funds,
especially as the number of people and companies concerned may move,
because of the possible relocation of British companies on French territory.
Mr. Didier Marie. - The Socialist and Republican group abstains on this
amendment, as it did on the two previous ones. Amendment No. COM-18
was adopted, with the Socialist and Republican Group abstaining. Editorial
Amendment No. COM-20 was adopted. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur.
- Paragraph 9 of Article 1 is what I call the paragraph "broom" of the bill; it
enables the Government to "take any other measure necessary to deal with
the situation of United Kingdom nationals residing in France or exercising
therein an activity as well as established legal persons". in the United
Kingdom and carrying on business in France ". The expression "any other
measure" therefore admits of no limit. At first, I considered offering you the
pure and simple deletion of this paragraph, but it must be recognized that
broad authorizations are sometimes necessary to deal with the unexpected.
Nevertheless, the current wording goes very far; I therefore propose to add a
safeguard: it must be done to "preserve the national interests of France in
economic, financial, defense and security." This is the purpose of my
amendment No. COM-11. The Government will not support this amendment,
saying that I am going too far. Yet I do him a favor, because it reinforces the
constitutionality of his text. Mr. Richard Yung. - This precision seems to me
useless, it goes without saying that the Government defends the interests of
France. I will abstain on this amendment. Ms. Fabienne Keller. - I propose to
withdraw the adjective "nationals". It is the interests of France that must be
defended. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - It's true that it's a bit of a pleonasm. Mr
Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - We can remove this word. Amendment
No. COM-11, as amended, was adopted, the group The Republic en Marche
abstaining. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Article 1 of the draft law
allows the Government to grant more favorable treatment to British nationals,
subject to reciprocity. It refers to a decree to fix the date of this reciprocity.
Without calling into question the requirement of reciprocity, my amendment
No. COM-12 removes the reference to a decree, which must be made directly
in the ordinances, not in the enabling law. Amendment No. COM-12 was
adopted. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - Amendment No. COM-5 makes the
entry into force of Article 1 subject to the settlement of the question in the
Republic of Northern Ireland. Mr. Jean Louis Masson. - The biggest
uncertainty today about the Brexit terms is that many people in the European
Union are doing their best to complicate the negotiations. In fact, they want to
punish the British for having decided to leave the European Union. They
believe that, the more difficult the British will encounter, the more our citizens
will accept the idea that the move towards a federal Europe would be the only
relevant solution for the future. Clearly, they are not acting in good faith when
they claim to negotiate fair and honest conditions of exit, while at the same
time they demand the creation of a customs border within the United
Kingdom, in order to to separate from Northern Ireland. What would we say if,
tomorrow, Europe asked France to create a customs border within our
territory, for example by separating Alsace-Lorraine from the rest of the
territory? However, this ordinance bill is theoretically justified only by urgency.
This is therefore a direct consequence of the delay in the Brexit negotiations,
which itself results from the voluntarily extravagant demands made by the
European Union. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - No one has ever
wanted to restore a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of
Ireland. The peace of 1998 was very difficult to obtain - I remind you, there
were still between four and five thousand dead. Moreover, we hurried on the
spot to remove all materialisations of the frontier; today, there is nothing left.
Hence the difficulty of the current process. Unfavorable opinion. Mr. Jean
Bizet, President. - Things remain very tense in Ulster. Every evening at 6 pm,
a dozen doors are closed to separate Catholics and Protestants. When the
1998 agreements were signed, the European Union, which was not formally
involved, was very active in the shadows. She and the United Kingdom have
invested huge sums on this issue. This subject is therefore of great difficulty.
Amendment No. COM-5 is not adopted. Article 1 is adopted in the drafting
resulting from the work of the commission. Article 2 Mr Ladislas Poniatowski,
rapporteur. - I am against the amendment of suppression No COM-6 rectified
by Mr Masson. Amendment No. COM-6 rectified is not adopted. Mr Ladislas
Poniatowski, rapporteur. - My Amendment No. COM13 includes some
editorial adjustments and a clarification: the measures taken by ordinances
are intended to apply until the entry into force of treaties or bilateral bilateral
agreements between France and the United Kingdom. Amendment No.
COM-13 was adopted.Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Amendment No.
COM-19 contains the reciprocal provisions of those we have previously
discussed: Article 1 concerns British interests in France, Article 2 concerns
French interests in the United Kingdom. Amendment No. COM-19 was
adopted. Ms. Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam. - Beyond the goodwill displayed by
everyone with regard to nationals from one side or the other of the Channel,
some difficulties may arise in the implementation. Concrete examples show
that good words are not always followed by effect ... Therefore, my
amendment n ° COM-27 tends to provide for the setting up of a monitoring
committee made up of parliamentarians from both countries. I had the
opportunity to discuss such a committee with British diplomats and
parliamentarians, who were enthusiastic. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski,
rapporteur. - I am against it for two reasons: a formal reason, the question of
British nationals appears in Article 1 of the text, and a substantive reason: I
am totally opposed to paragraph 2 of your amendment. What would we say if
a foreign parliament required tomorrow the constitution of a commission
including French parliamentarians? I, for one, trust the chair of the Brexit
Senate Follow-up Group to ensure that the measures adopted are
reciprocally implemented. This monitoring group has produced, for the
moment, an excellent job. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - I remind you, the
United Kingdom will become for the European Union a third country, the
British will no longer have the same rights. Mr. Laurent Duplomb. - Can the
composition of this monitoring group evolve? Can we become a member? Mr.
Jean Bizet, President. - The monitoring group is composed of 20 members,
10 from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense and Armed Forces, and
10 from the Committee on European Affairs. A new member can be admitted
only if one of its members leaves it, and it must be a member of one of these
two commissions. Mr. Laurent Duplomb. - The Economic Affairs Committee is
not represented? Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - The members of the European
Affairs Committee have a dual membership. Ms. Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam. - I
was expecting this response from the rapporteur, but it would send a positive
signal to the British Parliament. If he does not wish to give a favorable
answer, whose action, but it seems appropriate to include it in the text.
Moreover, if this amendment is not adopted, it can be done through the
friendship group. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - For my part, I do not
want to reserve for two privileged "super-senators" the care of ensuring this
follow-up. I am a full-time parliamentarian, I am interested in this subject and I
hope that it remains within the competence of the monitoring group. Ms.
Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam. - But that will remain his competence! Simply, this
monitoring group is internal to the French Parliament. Here it would be a
cooperation between the parliaments of the two countries. Ms. Fabienne
Keller. - I understand this idea. Is there a committee responsible for
monitoring, at European level, the question of the reciprocity of the actions
implemented? Mr. Richard Yung. - This amendment would make sense if the
Government were involved in this cooperation. Ms. Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam. -
Exact ! Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Moreover, we must stop
multiplying the committees! Their members then do not have the time to
participate. I experienced it myself as part of a commission of inquiry, half of
whose members never came! Mr. Eric Bocquet. - I support this amendment.
Amendment No. COM-27 was not adopted by 17 votes against and 3 votes in
favor. Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Amendment No COM-7 by Mr
Masson makes the entry into force of this Article subject to the prior
settlement of the question in Northern Ireland. Unfavorable opinion.
Amendment No. COM-7 is not adopted. Article 2 was adopted in the drafting
resulting from the work of the Committee. Article 3 Amendment No COM-8 is
not adopted. Editorial Amendment No. COM-14 was adopted. Mr Ladislas
Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Orders are intended to deal with an emergency
situation. Nevertheless, they must be temporary, hence my amendment
COM-21. It's up to us to pay attention to the ratification of the ordinances.
Amendment No. COM-21 was adopted. - 156 - MEASURES PREPARED
FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF THE EUROPEAN
UNION Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, Rapporteur. - My amendment No COM22
introduces a clarification concerning the simplified procedures implemented
with a view to Brexit. Amendment No. COM-22 was adopted. Mr Ladislas
Poniatowski, rapporteur. - My Amendment No. COM23 is also a precision
amendment. Amendment No. COM-23 was adopted. Mr Ladislas
Poniatowski, rapporteur. - My Amendment No. COM25 recalls the necessary
respect for the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and
establishes a requirement of proportionality of the measures that will be taken
in relation to the aims pursued. Amendment No. COM-25 was adopted. Mr
Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - Amendment No. COM-9 by Mr Masson,
like a number of previous amendments, seeks to make the settlement of the
Northern Ireland question a precondition. Unfavorable opinion. Amendment
No. COM-9 is not adopted. Article 3 was adopted in the drafting resulting from
the work of the committee. Article 4 Mr Ladislas Poniatowski, rapporteur. - My
amendment No. COM15 aims to reduce the time required for ratification.
Amendment No. COM-15 was adopted. Article 4 is adopted in the drafting
resulting from the work of the commission. Title of the text Editorial
amendment No. COM-24 was adopted. Mr. Jean Bizet, President. - I will put
the text of the committee to the vote. Mr. Jean Louis Masson. - I vote against.
Mr. Eric Bocquet. - The communist republican group citizen and ecologist
reserves his opinion. He will express it in session. The bill is adopted in the
drafting resulting from the work of the commission. Mr. Jean Bizet, President.
- In conclusion, I wish to react to Eric Bocquet, who said he was not worried
about the British. Me either ... You said it's a pragmatic people; it has never
been invaded and it remains very present in their minds. No doubt, there will
be a little hollow for them, but they will rebound, in the financial field and in
others. Although they lose access to the financial passport, the headquarters
of the European Banking Authority and the clearing houses, they have a
remarkable mastery of financial engineering. They will create, if you pass me
the phrase, a kind of "Singapore on the Thames". The Brexit follow-up group
will have two choices: defeatism or startle; we will not do it for the first time ...
Its major task will be to convince the Government to change its attitude in this
respect. Indeed, the presence on our doorstep of a country more agile, more
reactive and engaging in dumping, if not environmental, at least fiscal and
social, will encourage the emergence of a Europe with several circles. We are
living in a period of change. The current difficulties in Germany show that the
Franco-German partnership can not remain so strong. The European Affairs
Committee has reacted quickly to Brexit by going to the Netherlands, but we
need a third partner. I know that Mr. Duplomb has a voice strong enough to
send messages to the monitoring group, which I am sure you will hear. By the
time we go into the text, we will try to get more information from Ms. Loiseau.
The bill is adopted in the drafting resulting from the work of the special
commission. The fate of the amendments examined by the Committee is
shown in the following table: Motions Author N ° Subject Fate of the
amendment M. MASSON 1 Objection of inadmissibility Dismissed M.
MASSON 2 Preliminary question Rejected Additional article (s) before Article
1 Author Object No. Spell of amendment Mr MASSON 3 To order the entry
into force of the draft law to redistribute the seats in the European Parliament
Rejected Article 1 Author N ° Subject Spell of the amendment Mr MASSON 4
Deletion of Article 1 of the Bill Rejected Mr PONIATOWSKI, Rapporteur 10
Clarification concerning the purposes of the power to legislate by ordinances
Adopted amendment Mr PONIATOWSKI, rapporteur 16 Details of British
employees to work in France after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from
the European Union Adopted Mr PONIATOWSKI, rapporteur 17 Clarification
concerning the recognition of professional qualifications obtained in the
United Kingdom Adopted M. PONIATOWSKI, Rapporteur 18 Details
concerning the social security coverage of British employees called upon to
exercise their activity after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the
European Union Adopted M. DUPLOMB 26 Specify the purpose of the
veterinary and phytosanitary controls to be set up Retired Mr PONIATOWSKI,
rapporteur 20 Editorial Adopted Mr PONIATOWSKI, rapporteur 11 Details
concerning the purposes of the 'sweeping' authorization Adopted with
modification Mr PONIATOWSKI, rapporteur 12 Deletion of a reference to
Order in Council Adopted Mr. MASSON 5 To order the coming into force of
section 1 to the settlement of the question in Northern Ireland Rejected
Clause 2 Author No. Object Subject of amendment M. MASSON 6 rect.
Deletion of Article 2 Rejected Mr PONIATOWSKI, Rapporteur 13 Clarification
of the purposes of the Orders Adopted Mr PONIATOWSKI, Rapporteur 19
Recognition of the completeness of a training course in the United Kingdom
Adopted Ms GARRIAUDMAYLAM 27 Maintenance of the rights of British
nationals in France - creation of an extra-parliamentary body Rejected M.
MASSON 7 To order the entry into force of Article 2 to the settlement of the
Northern Ireland question Rejected WORK IN COMMISSION - 159 - Article 3
Author N ° Subject amendment Mr MASSON 8 Deletion of Article 3 Rejected
Mr PONIATOWSKI, Rapporteur 14 Editorial Adopted Mr PONIATOWSKI,
Rapporteur 21 Temporary nature of simplified procedures implemented
upstream of Brexit Adopted Mr PONIATOWSKI, Rapporteur 22 Clarification
concerning Simplified procedures implemented with a view to Brexit Adopted
Mr PONIATOWSKI, Rapporteur 23 Clarification concerning the authorization
to legislate Ordered by Mr. PONIATOWSKI, Rapporteur 25 Respect for the
rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution Adopted Mr. MASSON 9
To order the coming into force of Article 3 to the settlement of the question in
Northern Ireland Rejected Article 4 Author Object No. Vote on the amendment
Mr PONIATOWSKI, Rapporteur 15 Reduction of the deadline for tabling the
bill to ratify the ordinances Adopted Text name Author N ° Subject Spell of the
amendment Mr PONIATOWSKI, rapporteur 24 Amendment of the title of the
draft in accordance with Article 38 of the Constitution Adopted

Text of the draft law Text adopted by the special committee in first
reading Bill to Empower Government to Make an Order Preparing for the
Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union
Government Legislation t to make by order the measures for the
withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union Amdt
COM-24 Article 1 Article 1 In order to draw the consequences of
withdrawal from the United Kingdom of the European Union without an
agreement concluded in accordance with the Article 50 of the Treaty on
European Union, in particular by adapting the ordinary law to deal with
current situations and providing, where appropriate, for derogations,
the Government is authorised, under the conditions laid down in Article
38 of the Constitution, to make by ordinance, within a period of twelve
months from the publication of this law, the measures pertaining to the
field of law which are necessary because of this withdrawal, in matters:
I. - In the the conditions laid down in Article 38 of the Constitution, the
Government is authorised to take by order the measures falling within
the field of law in order to draw the consequences of a withdrawal of the
United Kingdom from the Union. European Union without an agreement
concluded in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European
Union, in respect of: Amdt COM-10 1 ° right of entry and residence of
British nationals in France; 1 ° Right of entry and residence of British
nationals in France; (2) the employment of British nationals lawfully
exercising a salaried professional activity in France at the date of
withdrawal from the United Kingdom of the European Union; (2) the
employment of British nationals lawfully exercising at the time of the
withdrawal from the United Kingdom of the European Union a paid
professional activity in France or to engage in paid professional activity
in companies located in the United Kingdom the date of the withdrawal
of the United Kingdom from the European Union having chosen to
deploy in France after it; Amdt COM-16 3 ° of a natural or legal person
legally exercising on the date of the withdrawal from the United
Kingdom of the European Union of an activity or profession whose
access or exercise are subject to compliance with conditions; 3 ° the
exercise, by a natural or legal person exercising legally on the date of
withdrawal from the United Kingdom of the European Union, of an
activity or profession the access or exercise of which is subject to
compliance with of conditions. The professional qualifications obtained
in the United Kingdom are recognised immediately when the holders of
those professions carry out their activity in the United Kingdom where
they are to engage in paid professional activity in companies located in
the United Kingdom on the date of the withdrawal of the United
Kingdom from the European Union which has chosen to deploy in
France after this one; Amdt COM-17 4 ° rules applicable to the situation
of civil servants and trainees in the public service of British nationality;
4. Rules applicable to the situation of civil servants and trainees in the
public service of British nationality; (5) application to British nationals
lawfully resident in France on the date of the withdrawal of the United
Kingdom from the European Union from the legislation relating to social
rights and social benefits; 5 ° Applicable to British nationals lawfully
resident in France on the date of withdrawal from the United Kingdom of
the European Union of legislation relating to social rights and social
benefits or, after that date, called upon to exercise a salaried
professional activity in companies established in the United Kingdom
on the date of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European
Union having chosen to deploy in France after it; Amdt COM-18 6 °
control of goods and passengers to and from the United Kingdom and
veterinary and phytosanitary control of imports from the United
Kingdom; 6. Control of goods and passengers to and from the United
Kingdom and veterinary and phytosanitary control of imports from the
United Kingdom; (7) the carrying out of road transport operations of
goods or persons on the French national territory, including transit, by
persons established in the United Kingdom. 7 ° Carrying out operations
of road transport of goods or persons on French territory, including in
transit, by natural or legal persons established in the United Kingdom.
Amdt COM-20 Under the conditions of the first paragraph, the
Government is also empowered to take any other measure necessary to
deal with the situation of British nationals residing in France or carrying
on business there, as well as legal entities established in the United
Kingdom and exercising an activity in France. Under the conditions set
out in the first paragraph of this I, the Government is also empowered to
take any other measure necessary to deal with the situation of British
nationals residing in France or engaged in an activity there and of legal
persons established in the United Kingdom and exercising an activity in
France to preserve France's economic, financial, defense and security
interests. Amdt COM-11 COMPARATIVE TABLE - 163 - Text of the bill
Text adopted by the special committee at first reading II. (new) - The
orders referred to in I shall, until the entry into force, as the case may
be, of treaties or bilateral agreements between France and the United
Kingdom, to: 1 ° Draw the consequences of the absence of a
withdrawal agreement on the situation in France of British nationals; 2 °
Preserve economic activities on French territory; 3 ° Preserve flows of
goods and people from the United Kingdom; 4 ° Guarantee a high level
of health security in France; 5 ° Provide exemptions, simplified
administrative procedures and regularization periods for the legal or
natural persons concerned. Amdt COM-10 The orders provided for in
this Article may provide that measures granting United Kingdom
nationals or legal persons established in the United Kingdom treatment
more favorable than that of third country nationals or legal persons
established in third countries will cease to have effect if the United
Kingdom does not accord equivalent treatment to a date fixed by
decree. Such orders may provide that measures granting United
Kingdom nationals or legal persons established in the United Kingdom
more favorable treatment than that of third country nationals or legal
persons established in third countries shall cease to have effect if the
United Kingdom does not grant equivalent treatment. Amdts COM-10,
COM-12 III. (new) - Orders made under this section shall be made within
twelve months of the publication of this Act. Amdt COM-10 Article 2 In
order to draw the consequences of a withdrawal United Kingdom of the
European Union without an agreement concluded in accordance with
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, in particular with a view to
preserving the national interests and the situation of French nationals
and other persons to whom the right of the Union forbids different
treatment, the Government is authorised, under the conditions set out
in Article 38 of the Constitution, to make an order, within twelve months
of the publication of this law, of the measures within the scope of the
law which are necessary to permit: I. - Under the conditions provided for
in Article 38 of the Constitution, the Government is authorized to make
by ordinances the measures falling within the scope of the law to draw
the consequences of a withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the
European Union without an agreement concluded in accordance with
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, as regards: Amdt COM-13 1
° taking into account, for the opening and the determination of the
social rights, periods of insurance, activities or professional training
exercised or carried out in the United Kingdom before the date of its
withdrawal from the European Union; 1 ° The taking into account, for
the opening and the determination of the social rights, periods of
insurance, activities or professional training exercised or carried out in
the United Kingdom before the date of its withdrawal from the European
Union; 2 ° the taking into account of diplomas and professional
qualifications acquired or in the course of acquisition in the United
Kingdom on the date of its withdrawal from the European Union and the
professional experience acquired in the United Kingdom on the same
date; 2 ° Taking into account diplomas and professional qualifications
acquired or in the process of being acquired in the United Kingdom on
the date of his withdrawal from the European Union and professional
experience acquired in the United Kingdom on the same date and that
diplomas and professional qualifications forming part of a training
program integrating those obtained or in the process of acquisition at
March 30, 2019; Amdt COM-19 3 ° the pursuit by the beneficiaries of
licenses and authorizations for the transfer of products and materials to
the United Kingdom, issued pursuant to Articles L. 2335-10 and L.
2335-18 of the Defense Code before the date of the withdrawal of the
United Kingdom from the European Union, the supply of these products
and materials until the expiry of the term fixed by these licenses and
authorizations; 3 ° The pursuit by the beneficiaries of licenses and
authorizations for the transfer of products and materials to the United
Kingdom, issued pursuant to Articles L. 2335-10 and L. 2335-18 of the
Defense Code before the date of withdrawal from the United Kingdom of
the European Union, the supply of these products and equipment until
the expiry of the term fixed by these licenses and authorizations; 4 ° the
access of French entities to the interbank payment settlement and third
country delivery settlement systems, including the United Kingdom, by
ensuring the definitive nature of the payments made through these
systems, the continuity of the use of framework agreements in matters
4 ° The access of the French entities to the interbank payment and
settlement systems of third countries including the United Kingdom by
ensuring the settlements made through these systems, the continuity of
the use of the framework agreements in respect of financial services
and the securing of the conditions for the performance of the contracts
concluded prior to the loss of the recognition of the British entity's
licences in France; and securing the conditions for the execution of
contracts concluded prior to the loss of recognition of UK entity
approvals in France; 5 ° the continuity of the flows of passengers and
goods between France and the United Kingdom through the Channel
Tunnel to ensure France's compliance with its commitments as a
franchisor of the Channel Tunnel . 5 ° Continuity of passenger and
freight transport flows between France and the United Kingdom through
the Channel Tunnel to ensure France's compliance with its
commitments as a franchisor of the Channel Tunnel . II. (new) - The
orders provided for in I shall, until the entry into force, as the case may
be, of treaties or bilateral agreements between France and the United
Kingdom, to: 1 ° Preserve social and professional rights
French nationals and other persons to whom EU law prohibits different
treatment; 2 ° Preserve the interests of France in economic, financial,
defense and security. III. (new) - Orders made under this section shall be
made within twelve months of the publication of this Act. Amdt COM-13
Article 3 Article 3 Under the conditions provided for in Article 38 of the
Constitution, the Government is authorized to make an order, within six
months of the publication of this Act, of the measures within the scope
of the law made necessary by the prospect of a withdrawal of the United
Kingdom from the European Union, in order to provide for the particular
procedural rules applicable to work for the construction or the urgent
installation of premises, port, rail, airport and road facilities or
infrastructure required for the reestablishment of controls of goods and
passengers to or from the United Kingdom. I. - Under the conditions set
out in Article 38 of the Constitution, the Government is authorized to
take by order measures in the field of law rendered temporarily
necessary by the prospect of withdrawal from the United Kingdom of
the Union in order to provide for the simplified procedural regime
applicable to works for the urgent construction or improvement of port,
rail, airport and road premises, installations or infrastructures required
for the re-establishment of checks on goods and passengers at their
destination. or from the United Kingdom. Amdts COM-14, COM-21,
COM-22 In particular, the Government is authorized to make the
provisions of the provisions of this Article applicable to the provisions
of this Article: - 166 - MEASURES PREPARING FOR THE WITHDRAWAL
OF THE UNITED KINGDOM THE EUROPEAN UNION Text of the draft law
Text adopted by the Special Committee at first reading operations
referred to in the first paragraph directly related to the organization of
such controls, adaptations or derogations, in particular as regards
planning, urban planning, expropriation for reasons of public interest,
preservation of heritage, roads and transport, public ownership, public
commission, rules applicable to seaports, public participation and
environmental assessment, in order to adapt them the urgency of these
operations. operations referred to in the first paragraph directly related
to the organization of such controls, adaptations or derogations, in
terms of planning, urban planning, expropriation for reasons of public
utility, preservation of heritage, roads and transportation, public
ownership, public procurement, seaport rules, public participation and
environmental assessment, in order to adapt them to the urgency of
these operations. Amdt COM-23 The adjustments or derogations thus
instituted temporarily, while respecting the rights and freedoms
guaranteed by the Constitution, are strictly proportionate to the
objective of maintaining the security and fluidity of the transport flows.
Amdt COM-25 II. (new) - Orders made under this section shall be made
within six months of the publication of this Act. Amdt COM-14 Article 4
Article 4 A ratification bill shall be tabled in Parliament within six
months of the publication of the ordinances. For each of the orders
provided for in sections 1 to 3, a ratification bill shall be tabled in
Parliament within three months of its publication.