France might actually take an interest if EADS Socata told their govenrment that the sale of their flagship aircraft would be adversely affected by the proposals regarding N reg in PART FCL.
I am 100.000% certain this has happened already, because I know Socata top management are fully aware of the details. Which is a very puzzling thing. They are quite casual about it, overtly. Yet there is no way France will allow Daher/EADS TBM850 and various Dassault jet sales to be crippled by EASA. What they are going to do about it will be a very interesting thing to watch, over the next few years!
I can only assume France has received under the table assurances from EASA and EU officials that this whole thing is no more than a charade to drive the FAA to sign a BASA covering a pile of airline related matters, and will be dropped regardless at the end. Everything I hear from the EU, and what I have heard from a top EASA official, points to such a policy.
Not sure of the criteria, but it'll be something like " if it's operating in Europe for x many days...."
There is no such "long term
parking limit" (which is the only way to define it) in any of the proposals. That was tried by the French in 2004 and by the Brits in 2005, and abandoned like hot potatoes. There are several easy work-arounds for any possible such proposal; some obvious and some less obvious (and I am not writing about any of them, just in case
).
Basically, a parking limit cannot be implemented in any civilised law-respecting country. In other countries (which make up the majority of countries around the world) they are implemented by harrassment of the operator, requiring him to pay "fines" and generally pay bigger and bigger bribes to local officials, give longer and longer notice to fly somewhere, and after a while he gets the message.