Two MEPs at the centre of the fight to deter young people from smoking give their insight on whether new EU tobacco laws are a Class A success or categorical failure.

Smoking laws: Radical change or a chance gone up in smoke?

All packs will have to carry a health warning  covering 65% of their surface.

E-cigarettes will be regulated either  as medicinal or as tobacco products.

Lipstick boxes will disappear, menthol  cigarettes will be banned in 2020.

to prevent young people  from starting to smoke.

how they view the new regulation  on tobacco products:

The law doesn't go as far as  I would have liked initially.

I would have liked bigger picture warnings,  to totally ban slim cigarettes off the market.

But what we've got today is a very  big step forward in many EU countries.

For the first time ever, we'll have  the majority of a cigarette package

and roll-your-own tobacco packages  covered in health warnings.

So the branding becomes smaller,  and the warnings become bigger.

We weren't able to push through  our entire agenda on all issues,

but there are important improvements  in terms of the Commission proposal

and the unified position of the Council,

as well as important improvements  regarding the current legal situation.

But some of your colleagues  wanted to do much more.

Because in the European Parliament  and in the Council

governments and some MEPs oppose going  as far as the Commission originally wanted.

My group supported the European  Commission proposal

but in politics you always  have to find a compromise.

larger health warnings,  or even so-called plain packaging.

I think it's also important  that we warn young people

Will they be freely available,  as e-cigarette smokers wanted?

There was lots of misinformation  out there in the media,

people saying that the EP, the Commission

wanted to ban e-cigarettes, take them  off the market, it was never the case.

We have a regulatory framework  that's failed in Europe.

And now we have a new law which says  that e-cigarettes are on the market.

There'll be two routes -  either they're a pharmaceutical product,

and the company has  to get a proper licence,

or they are a consumer product, subject  then to regulation like tobacco products.

Electronic cigarettes are tightly regulated,  and rightly so.

Contrary to what others claim,  they are not a toy.

They can be harmful when used incorrectly.

However, we shouldn't  regulate them to death.

Was the taxation of e-cigarettes  also part of the negotiation?

It could become important tax income  for governments, couldn't it?

The EU has nothing to say  about this tax on cigarettes.

Each country has it's own level  of tax subject to minimum levels

so the difference is up to each government  to decide on tax levels.

In my country, for example,  some e-cigarette companies

want to get a medicines licence  to become a product on the market

because then they have a lower tax rate,

and they can be recommended  by doctors to help people quit smoking.

Each country will  have its own separate laws.

Of course you can never take all of the  Member States' motives into consideration.

The talks I was involved in  focused on safety issues.

I wasn't aware of the tax issue,  but I wouldn't want to exclude it.

You have to accept  a certain degree of subsidiarity.

To reiterate, the starting point was a  pharmaceutical marketing authorisation

How should the e-cigarette be thought of?

I believe that e-cigarettes  can help smokers quit smoking.

I don't want to see them become  a gateway for young people into tobacco,

or to become a product  which helps smokers stay smokers.

Because that's another problem, if you  can vape all day, you can smoke at night.

E-cigarettes are a less harmful variant,

however, they are not entirely harmless.

Therefore, e-cigarettes should only be seen  as a means for smokers

Nicotine is a poison,  so they're not a desirable variant,