Hi,
Yes, there will be a next stage, but on the subject of FoP the National Assembly, the Senate and the government basically agree now, so I wouldn't expect too much. Maybe some words will be change during the legal scrubbing, but that's about it.
In the French debate their three architects' organisations were notably absent. At least I didn't catch any meaningful public or direct lobbying attempts to sway opinion. The ADAGP
was there to do play their part. The debate in the Senate mostly focused on the differences between "espace publique" and "voie publique" and whether organisations should be included or just individuals. Here again a debate erupted over which term to use - "individuels" vs. "personnes physiques". Another debate was spun around the wording of non-commercial ("à des fins non lucratives" vs. "à caractère directement ou indirectement commercial").
Politically, we can book a new exception in France as a victory. If we deliver another country or two in the coming months/year that switch to the full exception (my money is on Estonia or Belgium) that would generate an excellent momentum to demand something more ambitious.
In my mind, what we need to phrase now is a new compromise that defines a harmonised FoP baseline that improves the situation for our projects. The easiest for the Commission would of course be to just harmonise the current FoP article, thereby leaving all options to the Member States. This, however, would not be a great leap toward creating legal certainty on a single market. Ideally we would convince them to go at least one step further and include a full exception for buildings or to word it in a way that cancels out the antiquity laws. The challenge is to word such a thing neatly and credibly, which I must admit I am struggling with. I am not even sure it is possible to negate the antiquity laws with an InfoSoc text. But I am very much looking for ideas and new solutions from this group ;)
Cheers,
Dimi