Madam, - Jamie Smyth's report on the EU as consumer champion (April 4th) was a fair and timely presentation of the issues involving consumer protection at European level.
However, I suggest that the use of the term "watered down" in relation to the European Parliament's revision of the "Bolkestein" directive is to adopt a position on one side of a contentious debate.
From the point of view that the market should be let rip, the revised text certainly watered down the original proposal. On the other hand, if you hold, as I do, that working conditions and consumers need to be protected from the downward pressures on standards which competition generates, then the changes achieved by Socialist MEPs should be seen as strengthening the proposal.
The original proposal would have made it practically impossible for an aggrieved consumer to exercise an effective remedy. The change of benefit for consumers is that even when buying from a service provider located outside their own state consumers will continue to be protected by the legislation of their own state, and not that of the "country of origin", as proposed by the Commission. At the same time, the new text will make it easier for service providers to offer their services in another member-state.
Those changes are surely to everyone's advantage. - Yours, etc,
PROINSIAS DE ROSSA MEP, Labour European Office, Dublin 1.