EU lawmaker group to challenge combustion engine ban this year
The ban's supporters say it is crucial to Europe's green ambitions and guiding the automotive sector's low-carbon transformation. But critics say it will handicap European carmakers already struggling with weak demand, Chinese competition and disappointing electric vehicle sales.
Jens Gieseke, the centre-right European People's Party's (EPP) negotiator on car policies, told Reuters the group would use a planned review of the policy in the third or fourth quarter to seek amendments.
It will propose changes such as allowing sales of combustion engine cars running on synthetic fuels and biofuels as well as plug-in hybrid vehicles beyond 2035.
"It was a mistake to ban the combustion engine," said Gieseke, a German EU lawmaker. "If fuels lead to a less carbon-intensive footprint, this should be recognised."
The European Commission - whose president, Ursula von der Leyen, belongs to the EPP - has so far resisted pressure to weaken the 2035 policy, which it says provides investment certainty.
However, the Commission last week brought forward a 2026 review of the policy to this year, and yielded to pressure from automakers by giving them three years, rather than one, to comply with 2025 emission limits.
Gieseke said if other EU lawmakers agreed, the 2035 target could be brought into negotiations on the 2025 limits as early as next month.
A majority of the European Parliament and a reinforced majority of EU countries must approve any changes to the car policies.
Italy and the Czech Republic, plus the party of Germany's likely next chancellor Friedrich Merz, have vowed to revise the 2035 target. But a senior EU diplomat said that, for now, most countries did not support amending the goal.
The EPP holds 188 of the 720 seats in the European Parliament but would need other lawmaker groups' support for any changes.
Right-wing EU lawmakers favour changing the 2035 policy. But the Socialists and Greens oppose weakening emissions goals, and argue the focus should be supporting carmakers to transition to electric vehicles and catch up with Chinese competitors.
Socialist EU lawmaker Mohammed Chahim warned during a European Parliament debate on Wednesday that "nostalgia" for traditional vehicles risked stifling innovation.
"I feel like I'm in the boardroom of Nokia when the iPhone was just released," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
8 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Trump reverses course on Ukraine, again
Photo byIf it wasn't already clear before the events of the past few days, the bad news for Ukraine is that Donald Trump appears to have only the most cursory grasp of the complexities of the existential war it is currently fighting, and a strong proclivity to adopt the views of the person he spoke to last. This is also the good news. Before his much hyped, but ultimately underwhelming, summit with Vladimir Putin last week, Trump was certain that his main objective was to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine, ideally then and there. 'I want to see a ceasefire rapidly,' Trump declared on board Air Force One as he flew to Alaska on 15 August. 'I don't know if it's going to be today, but I'm not going to be happy if it's not today.' This was one of the five key principles he had agreed in an emergency video conference with Volodymyr Zelensky and other key European leaders 48 hours earlier, along with a commitment that territorial concessions could only be negotiated by Ukraine. Yet after three hours with Putin, Trump had dispensed with the idea of a ceasefire altogether. 'It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on 16 August, 'which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' By 'all' he seems to have meant the Russian and American delegations. There were no Ukrainians present. Zelensky was thus, understandably, concerned, when he was summoned to Washington on Monday (18 August) to learn 'all the details,' presumably including how much of his country he would be expected to surrender in exchange for 'peace'. Rumours swirled that Putin was prepared to contemplate freezing the conflict along its current lines if Kyiv surrendered the entirety of Luhansk and Donetsk. (Ukraine still controls around a quarter of the Donetsk region, which includes key defensive strongholds and heavily fortified territory that functions as a bulwark against further Russian advances.) His European allies, too, were sufficiently alarmed to rush to the US capital en-masse in an attempt to head off another damaging Oval Office showdown between Zelensky and Trump. Their last White House meeting, six months earlier, had ended with Trump yelling at Zelensky that he did not 'have the cards' and having him removed from the premises. But this time, the encounter went better than any of them could have dared to hope. Zelensky had clearly learned the lessons of his previous experience, when his combat-style fatigues – which he was worn since the start of the conflict in solidarity with the Ukrainian military – seemed to upset the US president. When he stepped out of his motorcade outside the White House wearing in a black suit, specially designed by a Ukrainian tailor, Trump was delighted. 'I can't believe it,' he exclaimed, gesturing at Zelensky. 'I love it!' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The meeting itself, at least the part in front of the cameras, was perfectly cordial. Zelensky kept his answers short, taking every available opportunity to compliment Trump, and skirted around any difficult questions. The Ukrainian president's priority was clearly to shower Trump with praise and gratitude, and to take him up on what seemed to be the nascent suggestion, emerging in the days since the Alaska summit, that the US might be prepared to offer some sort of security guarantees for Ukraine as part of any peace deal. Zelensky mentioned this multiple times, making sure also to echo Trump's recent calls for a trilateral meeting with Putin, which he knew the Russian president would be reluctant to grant. Trump appears suddenly to have warmed to the prospect of US involvement in providing security guarantees, which he had previously seemed to reject, presumably wary of drawing the country into another open-ended commitment when he has styled himself as a president who ends 'forever wars'. 'There's going to be a lot of help,' he assured Zelensky during their meeting. The European forces would be the 'first line of defence,' Trump said. 'But we are going to help them out. We are going to be involved.' During the wider meeting that afternoon in the East Room – attended by British prime minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French president Emmanuel Macron, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish president Alexander Stubb, Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte, and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen – the European leaders reinforced Zelensky's call for security guarantees. One after the other, they praised Trump's leadership and then repeated, mantra-like, the need to 'stop the killing' by providing strong security guarantees to Ukraine. (Only Merz and Macron dared also to push for a ceasefire.) By this stage in the second Trump presidency, the world's diplomats are already fluent in the required terms of flattery, where it is safer to err of the side of extreme obsequiousness and the only limit is one's own dignity. Putin, in Alaska, supposedly told Trump that he had made America as 'hot as a pistol'. Von der Leyen duly began her remarks by reminding Trump that they had just completed the 'largest trade deal ever agreed'. She then delivered a moving appeal, 'as a mother and a grandmother,' for the assembled leaders to prioritise returning the thousands of Ukrainian children who are believed to have been abducted and taken to Russia. But when she finished speaking, it was the size of the trade deal that Trump remarked upon. The reason for Trump's apparent volte-face on the issue security guarantees is difficult to parse, but probably best explained by his sense that a deal to end the war is finally within reach. By his own, questionable account, he has resolved six wars in a little over six months and has his now sights set on a seventh, and the Nobel peace prize that he has long suggested should rightly then follow. (Trump's claim to have stopped six wars is heavily disputed.) He seems to believe that he has already pulled off a masterstroke by convincing Putin to meet him in Alaska, when in fact, the Russian president had been hinting they should meet since January. And while Putin appears to have quickly dismissed the possibility of a ceasefire during their meeting, he is said to have agreed that the US and Europe could provide 'Article Five-like' security guarantees to Ukraine. (It is worth noting that this claim seems to have originated with Steve Witkoff, Trump's roaming special envoy, who has form for delivering confusing – and confused – accounts of meetings with Putin.) So perhaps Trump genuinely believes that this is an uncontroversial issue for the Russian side, and an area for possible compromise. The only problem is that even as Trump and the Europeans were discussing the importance of security guarantees at the White House, the Russian foreign ministry issued a statement making clear that it had repeatedly and strenuously objected to the idea of any troops from Nato countries being deployed in Ukraine. 'We reaffirm our repeatedly stated position of categorical rejection of any scenarios involving the presence of a military contingent from Nato countries in Ukraine,' said the foreign ministry statement on 18 August. Russia has also previously demanded to a halt to western military aid to Ukraine as a condition for any potential peace deal, along with strict limits on the size of Ukraine's military and the abandonment of its goal to join Nato. It is not clear whether the Kremlin is prepared to negotiate on these terms. Pressed later that evening on what form any western security guarantees might take given these conditions, Rutte, Nato's secretary-general, was noncommittal in an interview on Fox News. 'What it will exactly mean' and the question of US involvement, he said, would be 'discussed in the coming days'. Trump left the meeting for around 40 minutes at one point to call Putin, as one does, while the other leaders waited in the White House. Rutte later claimed that in the course of that call, Trump had persuaded Putin to agree to a meeting with Zelensky, which would then be followed by a three-way meeting hosted by the US president. Merz said Putin and Zelensky could meet within the next two weeks. But at the time of writing, the Kremlin had yet to confirm Putin would take part, merely noting that the Russian president had 'discussed the idea of raising the level of direct Russian-Ukrainian negotiations.' It is possible we are now headed towards a rapid series of summits between Putin, Zelensky and Trump that could yield an imminent end to the fighting and a genuine peace deal. In which case, Trump might finally be able to begin preparing his Nobel prize speech. But it is equally possible that the US president's sudden mad dash for peace, accompanied by none of the preparation and little understanding of the complex issues and historical fault lines behind this conflict, will just as quickly fizzle out when it becomes clear how far apart the two sides really are, and whether or not Putin was ever really interested in peace. At a time when the Russian leader believes his forces are winning on the battlefield and time is on his side, it seems unlikely that he will agree to abandon his longstanding mission to subjugate Ukraine just to placate his 'dear friend'. This may well just be an effort to string out a putative peace process and keep Trump on side, while the Russian military grinds ahead. Given that Trump has, so far, shown little sign of following through on his threats to impose greater consequences for Putin's actions, what is to stop Russia fighting on through the rest of this year and then pushing for a peace deal on more advantageous terms next year, when the US president is likely to be even more desperate for a win ahead of the coming mid-terms? Others, too, are sceptical. 'I am not convinced that President Putin also wants peace,' Macron said at a press conference as he left Washington. 'His ultimate goal is to gain as much territory as he can, to weaken Ukraine.' Still, as long as they have Trump's attention, and they are able to impress on him the importance of making serious commitments to ensure Ukraine's security beyond this war, that will count as a victory for Zelensky and his allies for now. At least until Trump's next big encounter with Putin. Then, of course, the policy could just as easily change again. [See also: The great big anti-climax in Alaska] Related
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
There's a word for the EU's inaction over Gaza: racism
The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and her team face growing criticism of the controversial EU-US tariff deal agreed in July. I am hoping for similar calls for accountability over the EU's complicity in Israel's unfolding genocide in Gaza. Such a reckoning is long overdue. I have watched in despair for almost two years as European governments have done little or nothing while Israel has devastated Gaza through bombings, targeted strikes and forced starvation after the 7 October attack by Hamas. There are so many sanctions at the EU's disposal which they are still refusing to deploy; so many levers they are refusing to pull. The bloc is Israel's biggest trading partner, accounting for 32% of Israel's total trade in 2024. Yet at every meeting, EU leaders and foreign ministers have failed to secure the majority needed to suspend the EU-Israel association agreement. This despite pressure from Spain, Ireland and Slovenia, and despite the fact the EU's own human rights experts have indicated that Israel is in breach of the accord's human rights obligations. Even a modest commission proposal to partly suspend Israel from the EU's €95bn Horizon Europe research programme – an initiative that the EU's former foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has described as a 'bad joke', given the scale of Israel's atrocities – remains blocked by Germany and Italy. Israeli exports to the EU actually rose in early 2024. The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, says Berlin is now stopping exports of military equipment to Israel that could be used in Gaza. But this follows almost two years of unabated military support: arms export licences from Germany alone amounted to €485m of equipment in the 19 months after 7 October. I understand Europe's historical guilt, internal divisions and deep economic ties with Israel. But it is impossible to ignore a more uncomfortable truth: Europe's political and moral paralysis over Gaza is intimately linked to the structural racism and violence which so many black, brown and Muslim Europeans face every day. It is clear to me that attitudes towards Gaza are shaped by an enduring colonial mentality that is embedded in the EU's foreign, trade and migration policies. The same dehumanising logic applied to racialised Europeans and refugees from Africa, Asia and the Middle East is now in plain view in the EU's abandonment of the Palestinian people. Europe's domestic and external biases are feeding off and sustaining each other. This connection is not abstract. It is glaringly visible in the disparity of treatment of Ukraine and Gaza. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine was rightly condemned by the EU, which imposed severe and unprecedented sanctions on Moscow, gave more money to Kyiv and repeatedly condemned other states that did not follow suit. Palestinian lives, however, are treated as expendable, their suffering is minimised while children are robbed of their childhoods. The suffering in Gaza, framed as a humanitarian crisis rather than a deliberate political choice, is decontextualised, depoliticised and sanitised. EU policymakers should listen when the Palestinian-American academic Rashid Khalidi says this conflict is 'the last colonial war in the modern age'. The moral reckoning over the EU's inaction on Gaza cannot be partial or piecemeal. It must include a recognition of how Europe's past and present intersect, not only when it comes to Palestine but in many of its actions on the global stage. An EU that sees itself as a defender of international law and global justice should be willing to have these difficult conversations – in fact, it should encourage them. But the largely Eurocentric EU-policy circles see such talk as divisive. Without serious self-examination and long overdue action, the EU's very visible double standards will continue to undermine its democracy at home and its credibility abroad. An updating of the 2020 anti-racism action plan could provide a way forward. But for that to happen, measures to combat the current alarming state of EU-wide discrimination must be backed by clear-eyed reflections on Europe's history. This too is overdue. The action plan has lost momentum and a recent bureaucratic reshuffle has sidelined Michaela Moua, the first EU anti-racism coordinator, in what many fear could further undermine the bloc's equality agenda in the coming years. Still, public pressure and dissent within EU institutions, including among senior officials, is growing. Von der Leyen, who has been criticised for her unwavering pro-Israel bias, has come out against plans for an Israeli occupation of Gaza City. It is far from enough. Critics of the EU's stance are right to decry its double standards, its betrayal of international law and the eroding of its own credibility. Israel's plans for occupying the whole of Gaza must be stopped, food must be brought in urgently and there must be an immediate ceasefire. Any serious reckoning over the EU's inaction in Gaza will remain incomplete without confronting the structural racism and lingering colonial hierarchies that still shape Europe's worldview. Gaza has stripped away the pretence. The EU's policymakers must finally confront these truths, however harsh, and act to dismantle them. Shada Islam is a Brussels-based commentator on EU affairs. She runs New Horizons Project, a strategy, analysis and advisory company
South Wales Guardian
37 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Starmer hails ‘real progress' made during White House summit on Ukraine war
The Prime Minister was one of several European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, French President Emmanuel Macron and Nato secretary general Mark Rutte, in attendance for the discussions in Washington on Monday. US President Donald Trump said he spoke directly with Vladimir Putin to begin planning a meeting between the Russian leader and Mr Zelensky, which will then be followed by a three-way meeting involving himself. He also said Moscow will 'accept' multinational efforts to guarantee Ukraine's security. Speaking after the event, Sir Keir described the talks as 'good and constructive', adding: 'There was a real sense of unity between the European leaders that were there, and president Trump and president Zelensky'. The Prime Minister highlighted 'two material outcomes' from the talks, firstly that the coalition of the willing 'will now work with the US' on security guarantees. 'That's really important for security in Ukraine, for security in Europe, and for security in the UK,' Sir Keir said. 'The other material outcome was the agreement that there will now be a bilateral agreement between president Putin and president Zelensky, that was after a phone call between president Trump and president Putin during the course of this afternoon, followed by a trilateral which will then add in president Trump. 'That is a recognition of the principle that on some of these issues, whether it's territory or the exchange of prisoners, or the very serious issue of the return of children, that is something where Ukraine must be at the table. 'These were the two outcomes that were the most important coming out of today. They're positive outcomes, there was a real sense of unity. We've made real progress today.' Posting on his Truth Social platform after the meeting, Mr Trump also described the talks as 'very good', adding: 'During the meeting we discussed security guarantees for Ukraine, which guarantees would be provided by the various European countries, with a coordination with the United States of America. 'Everyone is happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. 'At the conclusion of the meetings, I called president Putin and began arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between president Putin and president Zelensky. 'After the meeting takes place, we will have a trilat which would be the two presidents plus myself.' Before the White House talks, the US president said he would 'probably' be able to find common ground with the leaders on a plan to ward off future attacks on Ukraine. He previously met with Mr Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday, where he declared there was 'no deal until there's a deal' to end more than three years of fighting in eastern Europe. 'The Alaska summit reinforced my belief that while difficult, peace is within reach and I believe, in a very significant step, President Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine,' Mr Trump said on Monday. 'And this is one of the key points that we need to consider.' He later said: 'We also need to discuss the possible exchanges of territory taken into consideration the current line of contact.' Mr Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, had suggested measures similar to Nato's article five mutual defence provision – that an attack on one member is an attack on the entire bloc – could be offered by the US without Kyiv joining the alliance. 'We were able to win the following concession: that the United States could offer article five-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato,' Mr Witkoff told CNN over the weekend, as he spoke about the Alaska summit. Future three-way talks 'have a good chance' of stopping the conflict, the US president claimed. But the president appeared to share conflicting views on whether a ceasefire was necessary to stop the war. 'I don't think you need a ceasefire,' he had originally said, before later explaining that, 'all of us would obviously prefer an immediate ceasefire while we work on a lasting peace'. During the discussions, Sir Keir welcomed plans for a security guarantee, after Mr Trump introduced him at the negotiating table as a 'friend' on Monday. He said: 'Your indication of security guarantees, of some sort of article five-style guarantees, fits with what we've been doing with the coalition of the willing which we started some months ago, bringing countries together and showing that we were prepared to step up to the plate when it came to security. 'With you coming alongside, the US alongside, what we've already developed, I think we could take a really important step forward today – a historic step, actually, could come out of this meeting in terms of security for Ukraine and security in Europe.' Sir Keir also described potential future trilateral talks as appearing to be a 'sensible next step' and continued: 'So, thank you for being prepared to take that forward, because I think if we can ensure that that is the progress out of this meeting – both security guarantees and some sort of progress on (a) trilateral meeting of some sort to bring some of the difficult issues to a head – then I think today will be seen as a very important day in recent years.' The PA news agency understands the Prime Minister disrupted his holiday plans over the weekend to join calls, including with Mr Trump and Mr Zelensky, before he headed to Washington, as reported in The Times. Following the talks, Mr Trump said he also discussed 'the massive worldwide problem of missing children' with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Responding on X, Mr Zelensky said: 'This issue lies at the heart of the war's humanitarian tragedy – our children, broken families, the pain of separation. At least 20,000 children were taken. 'We are working tirelessly to bring every child home. The same applies for our prisoners of war and civilians held in Russia for years, some since 2014, in very bad conditions. Thousands of people still need to be freed – and this is a part of making peace. 'We will work to negotiate all-for-all prisoners of war exchange, and we are grateful to have strong friends who help.' Mr Zelensky, whom Mr Trump greeted at the door of the West Wing with a handshake earlier in the evening, wore a black shirt with buttons and a black blazer to the meeting at the White House. His attire had appeared to become a point of irritation for Mr Trump during a previous meeting in February. Early in the meeting, the Ukrainian described the talks as 'really good', saying they had been 'the best' so far. Mr Zelensky said: 'We are very happy with the president that all the leaders are here and security in Ukraine depends on the United States and on you and on those leaders who are with us in our hearts.'
