Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
 Index 
 Full text 
Debates
Tuesday, 16 April 2019 - Strasbourg Provisional edition

Better enforcement and modernisation of EU consumer protection rules (debate) (debate)
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Dalton, Rapporteur. – Mr President, it is a big file, but 90% of the interventions have been on one issue, and I agree with what many of you have said on dual quality. That is why we managed to achieve a lot on it. This is a ground-breaking agreement for dual quality, but what I don’t understand is why colleagues want to kill the whole agreement, including everything, because we didn’t get an impossible demand through. It is simply not viable to demand the same in all countries; there are different taste preferences in different countries, different raw material availability, and it is not always worse because the ingredients are different. I’ll give you an example: Coca-Cola in the UK is made with cane sugar; in Belgium and France, it is made with beet sugar. Who is being discriminated against? Please tell me: who has to lose the product they like in the industry that they have? I understand that your worry is about Eastern Europe. Well, in the Coke case, it is isoglucose, which is produced in Eastern Europe and is also the same thing they use in the US. So I ask my question again: which is the best product? Who is being discriminated against? If we passed that amendment, you would have to do this for every single product in the EU – millions upon millions of them. It is just not possible. It is also not possible to pass this amendment and go back to the negotiating table; there will be no negotiating table. The Council and the Commission have made it clear that they have given all they can, and they’ve given a lot. The time has now gone. It will also be clear to them that there was no point the Commission proposing anything on this, because the EP will take an unrealistic position, which will mean that, in the end, we have no deal. And then we will lose all of the following: what we did achieve on dual quality, on ranking transparency, on the block to the changes to the right of withdrawal, on banning bot selling, on marketplace transparency, on banning fake reviews, on price comparison services, transparency, and on the ability to levy penalties. Let’s not throw all of that away.

Just before I finish, I want to thank the people in my office who worked on this: Cameron Smith, Alex Davis and Jonny Goff.

 
Last updated: 9 July 2019Legal notice