European Parliament clears way for fast-track approval of softer car C02 emission targets
BRUSSELS, May 6 (Reuters) - The European Parliament cleared the way on Tuesday to fast-track approval of softer EU C02 emissions targets for cars and vans that will allow automakers more time to comply and reduce potential fines.
EU lawmakers voted in favour of a motion for rapid approval of the change, rather than proceeding with months of debate. They will vote again on Thursday on the Commission's proposal itself. The proposal still needs approval from EU governments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Bob Morris obituary
My friend and colleague Bob Morris, who has died aged 87, was the oldest among the many volunteers working for the Constitution Unit at University College London, which specialises in constitutional reform, with help from those with inside knowledge of government. He was also by far the longest serving, having worked with us for almost 30 years. His time with the unit was almost as long as his time in the Home Office, where he was a senior civil servant for almost 40 years. He was highly respected and much loved in both roles, for his strong sense of public service, the breadth and depth of his knowledge, and his generosity in sharing it with others. Born in Cardiff, Bob was the son of William Morris, a mechanical engineer, and his wife, Mary (nee Bryant). The family moved according to his father's wartime postings as a marine engineer with the Royal Navy, and Bob went to several schools, including Handsworth grammar in Birmingham. He was old enough to do national service in the South Staffordshire Regiment before going to Christ's College, Cambridge, in 1958 to read history. In his long Home Office career, which began in 1961, he worked variously on crime, policing, security, prisons, immigration and constitutional matters. He was private secretary to two home secretaries, Frank Soskice and Merlyn Rees, and secretary to departmental committees on Northern Ireland, and on UK prisons. He led UK delegations to the EU, the Council of Europe and the UN, and travelled widely on official business. In Bob's final position, as head of the Criminal Justice and Constitutional Department from 1991, he was in charge of relations with Buckingham Palace and the Church. After retiring from the Home Office in 1997, he became acting secretary for public affairs to the archbishop of Canterbury, and secretary to the Review of the See of Canterbury, chaired by Douglas Hurd in 2000-01. He found time to do a PhD on relations between the Metropolitan police and the government, 1860-1920, and started working for the Constitution Unit. There Bob launched a whole new programme of work on church and state. That began with a book and journal articles on disestablishment, and ended with detailed reports on the coronation, and revision of the accession and coronation oaths. That in turn kindled our interest in the monarchy, leading to a comparative study of the other monarchies in Europe, where we explored the paradox that countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden are hereditary monarchies, but are also among the most advanced democracies in the world. Bob was also heavily involved in training government departments and public bodies for the advent of freedom of information. His latest book, published last year, was about the Home Office 1782-2007, and was based on private witness seminars with key participants, which he had organised with the Institute for Contemporary British History. He was steadfast and loyal to all the institutions for which he worked; unfailingly reliable, courteous and considerate, and immensely generous with his time as well as his wisdom and experience. Bob is survived by his wife, Janet (nee Gillingham), whom he married in 1965, their children, Emily, Matthew and Ben, and grandchildren, Isabel, Sally, Joe and Julia.
Times
20 minutes ago
- Times
Poland's PM Donald Tusk strikes defiant tone after winning confidence vote
Poland's beleaguered prime minister has won a confidence vote, shoring up his position after a right-wing populist opponent took the presidency. Donald Tusk struck a defiant tone in parliament and insisted that his government would not yield by 'so much as a millimetre' amid conjecture that his already fractured coalition might disintegrate after the election. Tusk, who returned to power 18 months ago, had his ambitions for liberalising social reforms and a wholesale clean-out of the public sector repeatedly frustrated by the outgoing President Duda, who is close to the nationalist opposition. The prime minister's centre-right Civic Platform party had high hopes of breaking the blockade by getting Rafal Trzaskowski, the liberal mayor of Warsaw and an ally of Tusk, elected president in Duda's place. Yet Trzaskowski's lead in the polls evaporated and he lost to Karol Nawrocki, another opposition figure, who has vowed to intensify Duda's veto tactics after he takes office in August. • Who is Poland's new president? The defeat leaves Tusk's coalition at risk of being unable to present any significant legislation without it being rejected by Nawrocki. That has in turn led to calls for Tusk to stand down and call an early election instead of serving out his remaining two and a half years as premier. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the most powerful figure in the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party, has urged Tusk to make way for an interim cabinet of technocrats who would hold the fort until voters elect a new government aligned with the Nawrocki presidency. Yet Tusk resolved to fight on, using a vote of confidence in his own leadership to compel his coalition partners to reaffirm their loyalty. 'I don't know the meaning of the word 'capitulation',' he told MPs. 'There is no talk of it.' Fielding more than a hundred questions during a debate that dragged on for more than six hours, he announced that he would reshuffle his cabinet next month and hinted that he would abolish a number of ministries to fix what he described as a 'dysfunctional structure' in the administration. 'There is no political earthquake, but let's be honest: we face two and a half years of very hard, serious work under conditions that are unlikely to improve,' Tusk said. He suggested that his government's image problems had stemmed as much from understating its successes and a 'festival of lies from the opposition' as from its struggles to enact the promises it had made to the electorate: 'Perhaps we have overdone it with the belief that the truth will defend itself.' • How Poland's new president will halt the march of liberal reforms During the ensuing debate, PiS MPs lined up to accuse Tusk of losing control of the public finances and mismanaging projects of national prestige such as a container port near Szczecin and the country's nuclear research reactor facility. Radoslaw Fogiel, an influential PiS MP, told The Times that the confidence vote had been 'irrelevant' and 'nothing more than political theatre' intended to distract voters from the presidential election defeat. 'Donald Tusk's government has record-low approval ratings, has failed to deliver on most of its promises, does not respond to the aspirations of the Polish people, and is focused solely on fighting the opposition,' Fogiel said. Michal Wojcik, a former deputy justice minister, told Tusk's coalition benches: 'You are the Huns of Polish politics. You, like those nomads who invaded Europe many centuries ago, destroyed and pillaged, but lost. The Hun empire fell because it came into contact with the forces of democracy.' Ultimately, however, Tusk carried the day by 243 votes to 210, implying that all of the MPs in his coalition had remained by his side.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
What changes with the Gibraltar ‘fluid border' deal?
Get Brexit Done' was the Tory general election slogan in 2019 but the truth is that, even after Britain formally completed the process and left the European Union on 31 January 2020, there was still substantial unfinished business. One of the more intractable problems was Gibraltar, a British overseas territory but also inside the EU. Talks on its future status have dragged on until now, with the conclusion of the 'political agreement' on clearing up the details and the signing of the Gibraltar section of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. But not everyone is happy. Why was there a Gibraltar problem? As with Northern Ireland and Ireland, it was agreed in principle that there should be no 'hard border ' between Gibraltar, which now finds itself outside the EU, and Spain. But how to control movement of goods and people without checks? Tobacco smuggling was a particular source of arguments. The additional complication was that Spain is a member of the Schengen Area, which has no passport controls at all at borders with other members. Important military facilities on Gibraltar also need to be protected, as do reasonable relations between two Nato member states. As with Ireland and Northern Ireland in the more distant past, there is also the awkward fact that Spain did not accept British sovereignty over Gibraltar – unfairly ceded in the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, according to Madrid. This constitutional issue had poisoned British-Spanish relations for decades. Why has Gibraltar taken so long to fix? Early in the Brexit talks, in 2017, the EU granted Spain 'special status' over Gibraltar, in effect a national veto over whatever the EU and UK negotiating teams came up with. British, Spanish, and indeed Gibraltarian sensitivities proved irreconcilable, but, unlike Northern Ireland, the problem was small enough to shelve. Now it has been ingeniously settled. (The great historical irony is that, when the UK was an EU member state and Spain was seeking to join in 1984, the British were able to extract concessions from Madrid about an open border, the Spanish having previously sealed it to undermine Gibraltar). Is Gibraltar still British? Yes, but with full internal self-government and, as with the Falklands (but arguably not the Chagos Islands) the UK has given the government of Gibraltar the effective right to say no to any deal. The main change is that there will additionally be Spanish border officials operating at the seaport and at Gibraltar International airport, and there are extra restrictions on entering Gibraltar if a British passport holder has already spent 90 days in the Schengen zone over a 180-day period. But this can be treated as a rule imposed by the autonomous administration of Gibraltar. It is analogous to the uncontroversial presence of French border officers at St Pancras International. Has Spain given up its claim to Gibraltar? No, but the British government says that there will be 'a clause agreed by all sides which makes explicitly clear that the final treaty does not impact sovereignty'. What do the Gibraltarians want? To have their cake and eat it. The last referendum on their relationship with Spain was in 2002, when the Blair government wanted a much stronger bond with Spain for geopolitical purposes and sought to remove this obstacle. Asked if they approved of the principle that Britain and Spain should share sovereignty over Gibraltar, they rejected the idea by 99 per cent. On the other hand, in the 2016 Brexit referendum they voted Remain by 96 per cent to 4 per cent. So they know their minds, sort of. Are the Gibraltarians happy now? Very. The chief minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo, declared: 'I'm delighted we have finalised a conclusive political agreement which will bring legal certainty to the people of Gibraltar, its businesses and to those across the region who rely on stability at the frontier.' Who is unhappy with the Gibraltar agreement? The usual suspects, and even then not radically so. Nigel Farage, who once wanted Gibraltar to become part of the territorial UK itself (and contrary to the Treaty of Utrecht), now expresses mild disappointment that it is 'a little bit less British'. Even Priti Patel, that most vociferous defender of the British Empire and currently shadow foreign secretary, merely confines herself to warning: 'Gibraltar is British, and given Labour's record of surrendering our territory and paying for the privilege, we will be reviewing carefully all the details of any agreement that is reached." Does Gibraltar's status matter? Much more than it might seem. As part of a steady process of rebuilding relations, resolving problems and achieving a mutually advantageous Brexit 'reset', Starmer's government, including the foreign secretary David Lammy, has proved astonishingly successful. The prize is a European defence partnership, with British participation at every level, including industrial and procurement. A couple of Spanish border guards at Gibraltar seems a small sacrifice to make for the security of Britain's base and indeed the whole continent; and Spain needs to be encouraged to contribute more to Nato and collective European security.
