The Assembly voted on Wednesday the bill organizing the exit from the state of health emergency after July 10, with a period of "vigilance" during which restrictions will remain possible, the opposition being alarmed by a state of 'urgency "who doesn't say his name". The text was adopted at first reading, with the support of elected representatives LREM, MoDem and Agir, the oppositions on the right as on the left judging it "liberticide". It will be examined in the Senate on Monday.
>> LIVE - Coronavirus: follow the evolution of the situation
"The state of health emergency will end but our vigilance must remain intact," argued the Minister of Health, Olivier Véran. This outing must therefore "be organized", he added, estimating that "not to keep certain measures, it would be to act as if the risks of restarting (of the epidemic) did not exist", whereas the situation rebound in Beijing "shows that no one is safe".
In Guyana and Mayotte, the state of emergency extended until October 30
Came into force on March 24 in the face of the coronavirus epidemic, the state of health emergency, which allows certain public freedoms to be restricted, had been extended in May until July 10. The government intends to end it, but has made two exceptions: Guyana and Mayotte where the state of emergency will be extended "until October 30 inclusive", because the virus is still actively circulating there. For the rest of the country, "common law is not enough to deal with the extraordinary dimensions of this crisis", according to rapporteur Marie Guévenoux (LREM), who stresses the need to be able to "react very quickly" to "clusters ".
The text therefore allows restrictions on the movement of people, the reception of the public in certain establishments or gatherings, and this until October 30. But most of the state of health emergency "disappears", according to Olivier Véran, citing "confinement", the fact of going "to the funeral with the family" or even going to a restaurant. If it were necessary to decide on a new containment, such as that implemented from March 17, the government should again declare a state of health emergency.
CORONAVIRUS ESSENTIALS
> Coronavirus in China: should we worry about the new situation?
> Schools, taxes, fight against racism ... What you should remember from Emmanuel Macron's speech
> Coronavirus: 5 mistakes not to make with your mask
> Coronavirus: three initiatives that will disrupt our beach habits
> Between empty TGV and TER at a discount, SNCF is preparing for a bad summer
> Can we catch the coronavirus on a plane?
But the opposition on the right as on the left denounced a text which in reality amounts to "the state of emergency which does not say its name". They sought point by point to delete its provisions, in particular those concerning the right to demonstrate. The socialist Hervé Saulignac, who unsuccessfully defended a rejection motion, notably castigated a "cap number" with the maintenance of "the essentials" of the emergency regime, pleading for "a full and complete restoration of common law ". The elected LR Philippe Gosselin also denounced a "double talk" of the government with a bill which organizes a "real-false exit" from the state of emergency, while Christophe Naegelen (UDI) mocked an "effect ad "with this" hybrid plan ".
Same denunciation of a desire by the government "to lure us" (EDS group), a "useless" text (Liberties and Territories), a "denial of the rule of law" (LFI) or even maintaining a "sword of Damocles on freedoms" (PCF), in unison with associations such as the Human Rights League or the Judicial Union. Opposite, the elected LREM, MoDem or Agir defended a transitional regime "justified and necessary" against the virus. The "walker" Guillaume Vuilletet judged "the trial in hidden intentions" oppositions "of a serious inconsistency" because they suggest that "the crisis is over".
Concerns about the retention of certain data
In an attempt, however, to "respond to concerns", majority deputies notably framed the restrictions on gatherings in committee. The demonstrations will be subject to an authorization system "with regard to the implementation of the barrier measures". Insufficient changes in the eyes of the opposition, which denounced a desire to "curb" the demonstrations, while the start of the school year may be "a little hot" socially.
Another part of this text which raised the "deep concern" of the Order of physicians, and questions until the MoDem: the possibility of prolonging the conservation of certain data collected by health information systems, while it was to be limited to 3 months. It will be limited to the sole purpose of epidemiological surveillance and research, Olivier Véran defending a "coherent extension" to "better understand" covid-19.