Brexit Secret Deal

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.
- ForexpatriateorsecondedemployeesinacountryoutsidetheEuropean 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.TheresponseproposedbytheGovernment -
- TheGovernmentindicatesinthedraftlawthatitwishestotakeinto
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°-Professionalqualifications -
- 2.2.1.Existinglaw
- Frenchnationalsorthoseofothercountrieshavingacquiredaprofessional
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.Consequencesofwithdrawal
- withoutagreementIntheeventofwithdrawalwithoutagreement,the
principle of recognition of professional qualifications obtained in the United
Kingdom would no longer be guaranteed. -
- 2.2.3.TheGovernment'sproposals
- Asregardssocialprotection,theGovernmentintendstoguaranteethe
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°-Transfersofdefence-relatedproductsandspacematerialsThe 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.Currentlaw
- Thetradeofwarmaterials,weaponsandammunitionisgovernedby
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.TheBrexitstakes
- Accordingtotheinformationprovidedtoyourrapporteur,thereare 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.Theenvisagedanswers
- Theexacttextoftheprovisiontobeadoptedbyorderhasnotyetbeen
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°-Interbanksettlementsystemandexecutionofcontractsin
progress
-
- 2.4.1.ContextofArticle2.4.
- GiventheroleoftheLondonfinancialcenterinthefinancingofthe 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.PresentationofArticle2.4°
- Thedraftlaw,inparagraph4ofitsArticle2,envisagesthemeasures
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.
-
- AccessofFrenchEntitiestoThird-PartyInterbankPaymentandSettlement
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
- ThedraftlawempowerstheGovernmenttodrawtheconsequencesofa
Brexit without agreement on continuity of transport flows through the
Channel Tunnel. -
- 2.5.1.Currentlaw
- Freighttransportservicesandinternationalrailpassengerservices
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.
-
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 preclude a snap
referendum and, without an extension to the Art 50 period, there is no
time for that contest. And, given the UK's deteriorating relationship
with the EU
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/pdfs/ukpga_20000041_en.pdf
Merkel Announces EU Army as May Gathers
Cabinet of Capitulation

13 November - 2018

Merkel Announces the Creation of the EU Army as Theresa May Gathers her
Cabinet of Capitulation

UKIP deputy leader, Mike Hookem MEP blasts the lies that threaten to make the
UK a vassal state

UKIP deputy leader, Mike Hookem MEP has slammed the ‘shameless
warmongering’ of the EU elite, following the announcement by Angela Merkel
that the EU is to create its own Security Council, intelligence services and a
full-blown EU army.

Speaking from the Strasbourg Plenary, Mr Hookem said:

“As Prime Minister May gathers her Cabinet of Capitulation to consult on the
UK’s Brexit surrender to the EU’s terms, Merkel was outlining the EU’s real
agenda – the effort to become a military and economic superpower!”

“To me, Merkel’s warmongering speech – which was made just over 48 hours
after Europe marked the centenary of the Great War Armistice– is nothing less
than shameless warmongering that aims to pit the whole of Europe against
traditional allies such as the US.

“For years, UKIP have been warning about the creation of an EU army, only to
be derided as fantasists. Yet at the same time the establishment were brushing
off our warnings; plans for a powerful EU force were being worked out in
backroom deals.”

“Therefore, it seems appropriate that May’s Backroom Brexit Deal – negotiated

by Civil Servants rather than elected officials – finish the process of making us
a vassal state on the very same day that Merkel’s military vision becomes a
reality.
https://ukip.org/national-ukip-news-item.php?
id=125&fbclid=IwAR1oVpLcMZ5bHqqOhYwBapgeGwPLofXkp3YBqu4WnDyG4k
kPudsnrCIYsos
Senat Brexit Secret Deal Law
https://www.scribd.com/document/392488337/Senat-Brexit-Law?
fbclid=IwAR3Ai2b0vp6r3kn7OZZSnQmFl_pwpRdylplPPM90nqXI0sZH6F-
WZ2Y6HX4
They Are Selling Irelands neutrality and our Border for trading taxes at NI
border with EU army heavy Security i say close the border and Brexit from
EU now here is a secret deal EU army Document, from french Senate plans
for Uk NI and Britain its fuck Irelan, if you can read french, If not i Can
Translate it in english for you

Statement from Taoiseach Leo Varadkar #brexit November 14th 18, He

has no mandate of our nation, Leo - call an election, He hasn’t a clue, Pull
out now - down with Brexit
https://www.facebook.com/rtenews/videos/225152838395864/
https://www.facebook.com/rtenews/videos/225152838395864/
The best that could be negotiated. Doesn't sound too promising

Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier says |

A solution to avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland has been
found, EU Chief November 14th 2018
https://www.facebook.com/rtenews/videos/321078928619957/

Precious Union is weaking and the English people will not want the Brand
NI to stop them having perfect Brexit....Welcome all to the new era of
friendship and Irish people standing shoulder to shoulder Catholic and
Protestant Presbyterian Methodist or whatever your belief.....start think
that Ireland is your Country too as it is.
Cannot understand French and that english translator is inaudible..
seriously RTE
We are been ruled by unelected commissioners , mass migration ,free
speech curtailed ,and now E,U, army ,while our gutless politicians sell us
out ,,Past time we armed ourselves and fight back ,

Statement from British Prime Minister Theresa May as the UK cabinet

agrees to back the draft #Brexit deal, November 14th 2018
https://www.facebook.com/rtenews/videos/2224270011178263/

Vassal state'... 'a

betrayal'... Brexiteers
react to May's deal
PUBLISHED: 18:07 13 November 2018 | UPDATED:
18:18 13 November 2018
Matt Withers

The reaction
Leading Brexiteers have launched
ferocious attacks on Theresa May's
reported Brexit deal, accusing her of "a
betrayal of the Union" and calling for a
Cabinet mutiny.

A deal has been reached by negotiators in Brussels and go before a

crunch Cabinet meeting tomorrow.
But the hardline Leavers in May's party have already pounced on her
before it has even been published, urging Cabinet members to reject it.

Former foreign secretary Boris Johnson said he would vote against the
deal, claiming it was "vassal state stuff" and urged the Cabinet to "chuck it
out".

He said he expected the deal to be "pretty much" what had been agreed a
few week ago "we are going to stay in the customs union on this deal, we
are going to stay effectively in large parts of the single market and that
means it's vassal state stuff".

He told the BBC: "For the first time in a thousand years, this place, this
Parliament, will not have a say over the laws that govern this country. It is
a quite incredible state of affairs."

He added "I don't see how you can support it from a democratic point of
view, I don't see how unionists can support it, and I don't see how you can
support it if you believe in the economic and political freedom of this
country."

He claimed the deal was "making a nonsense of Brexit so I hope the

Cabinet will do the right thing and I hope they chuck it out".

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the pro-hard Brexit European Research

Group of Tory MPs, said the reported deal represented a betrayal of
Theresa May's promise to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom.

White flags have gone up all over Whitehall. It is a betrayal of the Union,"
he said.

"If what we have heard is true, this fails to meet the Conservative Party
manifesto and it fails to meet many of the commitments that the prime
minister makes.

"It would keep us in the customs union and de facto the single market.
This is the vassal state.

"It is a failure of the government's negotiating position, it is a failure to

deliver on Brexit and it is potentially dividing up the United Kingdom.
"It is very hard to see any reason why the Cabinet should support
Northern Ireland being ruled from Dublin."

Former party leader and Brexit hardliner Iain Duncan Smith warned that if
reports of the deal's contents were true the Government was "breaking
their own agreed position and will be bringing back something that is
untenable".

He added that "if the Cabinet agrees it, the party certainly won't".

Asked if the Government's days were numbered he said: "If this is the
case almost certainly, yes.

"Because they are in real trouble if they bring back something that is
unacceptable to the party.

"The Government puts itself in an impossible position, because they are

trying to promote something they themselves said they would never
promote. And that makes it impossible.

"How can you ask the party to vote for something which you yourself as
prime minister and the Cabinet said they would never ever allow?"

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/vassal-state-a-betrayal-
brexiteers-boris-johnson-jacob-rees-mogg-react-to-theresa-may-s-deal-1-
5778238
Nigel Farage - Macron Calls For EU Army For Defense
Against Russia, China, And USA
Nov 6, 2018
Now that Merkel is in decline, Emperor Macron steps up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZwRmq6WTpg
Theresa May's Brexit plan approved by Cabinet after
marathon talks
Nov 14, 2018
Theresa May has lived to fight another day after she managed to win the
Cabinet's backing for her Brexit deal tonight. The Prime Minister locked senior
ministers in No10 for a five-hour meeting where they signed up to the
withdrawal agreement she thrashed out with Brussels. A number of pro-Brexit
ministers were feared to be on the brink of walking out over the deal. Continue
reading: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/... Theresa May pleaded with
Cabinet ministers to act in the ‘national interest’ and back her draft Brexit deal
agreed with EU: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/... Would the Brexit deal
hammered out by Theresa May leave us under control of the EU?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/... MPs warn that Downing Street
paranoia is harming Brexit preparation:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/... Embattled Theresa May savaged over
Brexit deal at what could be her final PMQs – as her own MPs warn she’ll ‘lose
MILLIONS of votes’ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/... Sun Subscribers
receive the latest breaking news and videos directly to their feed. SUBSCRIBE
NOW and hit the bell to be the first in the know. http://www.thesun.co.uk

BREXIT - EU ratchets up pressure on UK with fresh no-deal plans The European Commission
proposes visa-free travel plans for UK after Brexit Nov 13, 2018

Theresa May has said a “small number” of issues still remain to be resolved as negotiators strive to
close the gap in the Brexit talks. But the EU has ratcheted up the pressure on Theresa May by
publishing a fresh batch of no-deal plans including the warning that it will only allow UK nationals to
make short visa-free visits to EU destinations if the policy is reciprocated by the British government.
With the Brexit negotiations at their most intense, and Downing Street pushing to make make decisive
progress within the next 24 hours to secure a November summit, the commission made public its
emergency preparations. They range from residency and visa-related issues to financial services, air
transport, customs, the transfer of personal data, and climate policy. Among the contingency plans, is a
proposal to allow British nationals to enjoy visa-free visits for up to 90 days within a 180-day period,
but only if the UK government offers the same terms to EU nationals. “This proposal is entirely
conditional upon the UK also granting reciprocal and non-discriminatory visa-free travel for all EU
member states, in line with the principle of visa reciprocity,” a statement said. Frans Timmermans, the
vice-president of the European commission, warned: “We will do upon you what you do upon us.” A
statement issued by the commission said that even if a deal was struck and ratified before the UK
leaves on 29 March 2019, there would be fundamental changes to the way businesses could operate in
the new environment. “While the European commission is working hard for a deal, and continues to
put citizens first in the negotiations, the UK’s withdrawal will undoubtedly cause disruption – for
example in business supply chains – whether or not there is a deal,” the commission said.
“Contingency measures cannot remedy the full effects of this disruption. “In the event of a no-deal
scenario, these disruptions will be even more significant and the speed of preparations would have to
increase significantly. Contingency measures in narrowly defined areas may, exceptionally, be needed
in order to protect the interests and the integrity of the EU.” No 10 has indicated that progress has been
made in the Brexit talks over the last 24 hours, although there is not yet a final text that is ready to be
put in front of senior ministers for approval. The prime minister’s official spokesman told reporters at a
morning briefing that “there are a small number of outstanding issues as the UK pushes for the best text
that can be negotiated”. Earlier the Cabinet Office minister, David Lidington, had said a draft deal
might still be reached by Wednesday evening, but that such progress was “not at all definite”. Video
with this afternoon's statement of European Commissioner Frans Timmermans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTADmuiXsYE
Draft Brexit deal: Here's how politicians reacted
Nov 14, 2018
SUBSCRIBE 627K
Opposition in the UK to the draft Brexit deal announced on Tuesday evening was
swift from Brexiteers and Remainers alike, signalling a tough battle ahead for PM
Theresa May.… READ MORE : http://www.euronews.com/2018/11/14/dr...
What are the top stories today? Click to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... euronews: the most watched news
channel in Europe Subscribe! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c...
euronews is available in 13 languages:
https://www.youtube.com/user/euronews...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0obmToL6Jc

The UK and the European Union announced on Tuesday evening that they
have reached a draft Brexit deal.
Reactions were swift, although it is believed few have read the 500-page
document.

Euronews recaps who's been saying what.

British Cabinet

So far, Cabinet ministers have stayed mute on the subject but they are
scheduled to gather in Downing Street this afternoon. May has also
already had one-on-one conversations with them to introduce the deal.

The Prime Minister needs her top team to approve the deal so it can then
be sent to EU leaders, thus paving the way for a vote in the UK parliament
— where resistance is expected.

Fears on May's side are that some of the most vocal within Cabinet —
whether from the Leave or Remain camp — will wait until after the
afternoon's meeting to resign in protest.

Conservative Brexiteers

Britain's ruling Conservative party has been split by Brexit. Staunch

Brexiteers have repeatedly condemned May's approach and proposals
during the negotiations and they did not deviate from the norm following
the announcement.

Boris Johnson, who resigned from this role as Foreign Secretary in July in
protest over May's Chequers proposals, told Sky News that it is "just about
be as bad as it could possibly be."

He added: "The kicker is that we haven't really managed to protect the

union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and said that "it is not,
by any stretch of the imagination, acceptable."

Fellow leading Brexiteer, Jacob Rees-Mogg also condemned the deal,

telling the BBC that: "This is the vassal state, it is a failure of the
government's negotiating position, it is a failure to deliver on Brexit and it
is potentially dividing up the United Kingdom."

"It is really hard to see any reason why the Cabinet should support with
Northern Ireland being ruled from Dublin," he added.

Nigel Farage, an architect of the Brexit referendum, was a lot more

concise but just as critical.
"Theresa May's Brexit agreement is the worst deal in history," he wrote on
Twitter.

Conservative Remainers

Pro-Remain Conservative MP Justine Greening told a rally calling for a

referendum on the deal on Tuesday evening: "Even if some people in my
party can't see that this is a bad deal, everyone else around this entire
planet can."

She said the deal will undermine the UK's credibility and lessen the
country's influence, warning: "I'm not going to back something that is
second best for this country."

Fellow Conservative MP Dominic Grieve, who defeated May's government

by ensuring Parliament would get to vote on any Brexit deal, told the
same rally that the deal was "utterly third-rate."

Jo Johnson — brother of Boris — who took a leaf out of his brother's book
by resigning his Cabinet position last week to protest against May's Brexit
strategy, said ministers were "looking deep into their consciences".

"We've got better choices as a country," he said.

Political leaders

Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), whose support May's

minority government need to win the vote in Parliament, described the
deal as "very, very hard sell."

In a statement, DUP leader Arlene Foster said: "our desire for a deal will
not be suspended by a willingness to accept any deal."

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the main opposition Labour Party said that
"given the shambolic nature of the negotiations, this is unlikely to be a
good deal for the country."

He reiterated his warning that Labour would vote against the deal if it fails
to meet certain criteria.

Across the EU

Just like the British Cabinet, EU officials have so far kept quiet, so let's take
a glance at what people are thinking across the bloc.
"Things are far from under control" German newspaper Die Zeit reported,
while Die Welt highlighted that "The opposition against May's fragile Brexit
deal is huge."

Les Echos is the only big French newspaper to splash on Brexit on its front
page, writing "May gambles everything on her Brexit project."

Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-
political/files/draft_agreement_coloured.pdf

Difficult days ahead, says Theresa May after cabinet

backs Brexit deal
Nov 14, 2018
TREASO MAY OUTSIDE TREASON CENTRAL