EU lawmakers reject attempt to curb far right's sway on climate talks
The far-right Patriots of Europe group, which rejects EU policies to curb climate change, on Tuesday took on the role of lead negotiators for the 2040 climate target, seeking to steer talks on the goal, which the group said it firmly opposed.
Lawmakers rebuffed a proposal on Wednesday to fast-track the negotiations, which would have skipped stages where the Patriots could exert most influence, and limited their ability to set the timings for negotiations.
A total of 379 lawmakers rejected the plan to accelerate the talks, versus 300 in favor and eight abstentions.
The vote puts the Patriots firmly in the lead for the parliament as it negotiates the final 2040 climate target with EU member countries. The Patriots will now draft an initial negotiating proposal for the parliament.
A Patriots spokesperson said the group would not prioritize trying to meet a September deadline for countries to submit new climate targets to the United Nations.
'What truly matters is achieving a deal that delivers real benefits for our citizens. Patriots have never negotiated under pressure like traders in a marketplace,' the spokesperson said.
The Patriots are the third-biggest lawmaker group in the EU Parliament and the group includes the political parties of France's far-right leader Marine Le Pen and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
The Patriots secured the lead negotiating role in a closed-door meeting on Tuesday by outbidding the parliament's biggest group, the center-right European People's Party, EU officials told Reuters.
Green lawmakers said they feared the target would now be watered down or face long delays. 'There is an acute danger that the European Union's climate target will be buried,' said German EU lawmaker Michael Bloss.
The attempt to fast-track the talks failed because it was not supported by the EPP — the party of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Dutch EPP EU lawmaker Jeroen Lenaers said the group did not deem the fast-track procedure necessary, and wanted to 'improve' the Commission's proposed target to cut emissions 90 percent by 2040, without specifying further.
Some EPP lawmakers have said a 90 percent target is too ambitious. Governments from Italy to Poland have pushed back this year on ambitious emissions-cutting goals, citing concerns over the costs for industries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
7 hours ago
- Arab News
European powers plan fresh nuclear talks with Iran
BERLIN: European powers plan fresh talks with Iran on its nuclear program in the coming days, the first since the US attacked Iranian nuclear facilities a month ago, a German diplomatic source told AFP on Sunday. Britain, France and Germany, known as the E3, 'are in contact with Iran to schedule further talks for the coming week,' the source said. The trio had recently warned that international sanctions against Iran could be reactivated if Tehran does not return to the negotiating table. Iran's Tasnim news agency also reported that Tehran had agreed to hold talks with the three European countries, citing an unnamed source. Consultations are ongoing regarding a date and location for the talks, the report said. 'Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon,' the German source said. 'That is why Germany, France and the United Kingdom are continuing to work intensively in the E3 format to find a sustainable and verifiable diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear program,' the source added. Israel and Western nations have long accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran has consistently denied. On June 13, Israel launched a wave of surprise strikes on its regional nemesis, targeting key military and nuclear facilities. The United States launched its own set of strikes against Iran's nuclear program on June 22, hitting the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo, in Qom province south of Tehran, as well as nuclear sites in Isfahan and Natanz. Iran and the United States had held several rounds of nuclear negotiations through Omani mediators before Israel launched its 12-day war against Iran. However, US President Donald Trump's decision to join Israel in striking Iranian nuclear facilities effectively ended the talks. The E3 countries last met with Iranian representatives in Geneva on June 21 — just one day before the US strikes. Also Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a surprise meeting in the Kremlin with Ali Larijani, top adviser to Iran's supreme leader on nuclear issues. Larijani 'conveyed assessments of the escalating situation in the Middle East and around the Iranian nuclear program,' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of the unannounced meeting. Putin had expressed Russia's 'well-known positions on how to stabilize the situation in the region and on the political settlement of the Iranian nuclear program,' he added. Moscow has a cordial relationship with Iran's clerical leadership and provides crucial backing for Tehran but did not swing forcefully behind its partner even after the United States joined Israel's bombing campaign. Iran and world powers struck a deal in 2015 called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed significant restrictions on Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. But the hard-won deal began to unravel in 2018, during Trump's first presidency, when the United States walked away from it and reimposed sanctions on Iran. European countries have in recent days threatened to trigger the deal's 'snapback' mechanism, which allows the reimposition of sanctions in the event of non-compliance by Iran. After a call with his European counterparts on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the Western allies had 'absolutely no moral (or) legal grounds' for reactivating the snapback sanctions. He elaborated in a post to social media Sunday. 'Through their actions and statements, including providing political and material support to the recent unprovoked and illegal military aggression of the Israeli regime and the US... the E3 have relinquished their role as 'Participants' in the JCPOA,' said Araghchi. That made any attempt to reinstate the terminated UN Security Council resolutions 'null and void,' he added. 'Iran has shown that it is capable of defeating any delusional 'dirty work' but has always been prepared to reciprocate meaningful diplomacy in good faith,' Araghchi wrote. However, the German source said Sunday that 'if no solution is reached over the summer, snapback remains an option for the E3.' Ali Velayati, an adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said last week there would be no new nuclear talks with the United States if they were conditioned on Tehran abandoning its uranium enrichment activities.
Arab News
16 hours ago
- Arab News
Pope Leo XIV urges immediate end to ‘barbarity' of Gaza war
CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy: Pope Leo XIV slammed the 'barbarity' of the war in Gaza on Sunday and urged against the 'indiscriminate use of force,' just days after a deadly strike by Israel's military on a Catholic church. 'I once again ask for an immediate end to the barbarity of the war and for a peaceful resolution to the conflict,' Leo said at the end of the Angelus prayer, after three people were killed on Thursday at the territory's only Catholic church.
Arab News
a day ago
- Arab News
Support for Palestinian statehood gathers momentum
In many European countries, official recognition of a Palestinian state is an excruciatingly slow process, more so than it should be. Despite mounting pressure from parliamentarians, civil society organizations and the wider public, many governments remain cautious, including British and the French authorities who have already expressed support for such a move. Their caution, even fear, before taking such a crucial decision is harming their own national interests, violates natural justice, and ignores the fact that the promise of the advancement of a peace based on a two-state solution outstrips, by far, any political risks that come with taking the plunge and recognizing Palestine as a state. Therefore, it was refreshing to hear French President Emmanuel Macron, during his visit to London this month for an Anglo-French summit, tell British parliamentarians: 'With Gaza in ruins and the West Bank being attacked on a daily basis, the perspective of a Palestinian state has never been put at risk as it is (now), and this is why this solution of the two states and the recognition of the state of Palestine is … the only way to build peace and stability for all in the whole region.' This is a somewhat late realization of something that, had it been done years ago, might have prevented the events of the past two, horrific years. Still, Macron deserves credit for advancing this agenda now and resisting Israeli claims that in the aftermath of Oct. 7, such recognition would be a reward for Hamas and terrorism. Israel is deliberately advancing this spurious theory that recognition of Palestinian statehood is effectively caving in to terrorism, when in fact the aim of such recognition is to break the impasse in resolving the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict peacefully, and actually sideline extremism. If nothing else, recognition would be a step toward redressing the power imbalance between Israel and Palestine, which has become a hindrance to efforts at reaching a peace agreement based on a two-state solution. Macron's remarks in London created some momentum for Palestinian statehood; immediately after his departure, perhaps inspired and encouraged by his statements, 59 MPs from Britain's governing Labour Party signed a letter addressed to Foreign Secretary David Lammy, calling on him to recognize, 'with great urgency,' the State of Palestine. Certainly, many of those who signed the letter have for a long time been outspoken proponents of such recognition. But others were new recruits to the idea, who see it not only as an end in itself but also a response to the shocking news coming out of Gaza every day, and to the constant stream of 'novel ideas' that originate from the Israeli government and inflict even more misery on the Palestinian people. Recognition would be a step toward redressing the power imbalance between Israel and Palestine. Yossi Mekelberg Deplorable suggestions from both Washington and senior Israeli officials have also served as a catalyst for the letter from MPs, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's proposal of a 'voluntary migration' of Palestinians from Gaza, and the announcement by Defense Minister Israel Katz of his plan to forcibly transfer hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians, if not the entire population of the territory, to a camp in the almost completely destroyed city of Rafah. The MPs called for action to prevent Katz's sinister plan becoming reality before it is too late. Israel's former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this week described it as tantamount to the construction of a 'concentration camp.' It is designed to make the lives of those forcibly placed there impossible, while preventing them from leaving unless their destination is outside of Mandatory Palestine. The British politicians who signed the letter to Lammy consider recognition of Palestinian statehood a priority, but in the meantime they also demanded the removal from the agenda of Katz's draconian proposal to concentrate masses of Palestinians in such a camp, which seems to be more of a transitional facility serving as a precursor to expulsion. In addition, they urged Lammy to continue to support the work of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in providing aid to the people of Gaza, while also pressing for the 'full and unhindered resumption of the humanitarian aid,' and efforts to secure the release of all hostages. This is an opportunity for the British government to adopt these recommendations — some would call them demands — and in doing so become an important player in efforts to resolve one of the most intractable conflicts in modern history. In an ideal world, recognition of the State of Palestine by European nations would come from the EU as a whole and not happen in piecemeal fashion, as has been the case so far with the much-welcomed recognition in May last year by Spain, Ireland, Slovenia, and Norway (the last of which is not a member of the EU). Nevertheless, the need for unanimity in passing such a resolution within the EU makes it almost impossible to achieve, as long as countries such as Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Hungary oppose it. Therefore, if Paris and London were to announce recognition of Palestinian statehood in tandem — either before or during the upcoming summit of world leaders on the two-state solution, which was postponed by the outbreak of the war between Israel and Iran in June and is now scheduled to convene at the UN headquarters in New York in September — it would send a strong message from two major powers, which are also permanent members of the UN Security Council, in support of what is already the policy of 147 other members of the UN. The message should be clear: This is not an anti-Israeli act, and most definitely not a reward for terrorism, but instead a positive move toward the peaceful resolution of one of the longest-running disputes in contemporary international politics, stretching all the way back to the beginning of the 20th century. It reaffirms the partition plan of 1947 and many subsequent international resolutions, and follows in the footsteps of diplomatic efforts that began with the Oslo Accords in 1993 and have been negotiated in different rounds of peace talks since then. It could be a game-changer, allowing the Palestinians to negotiate with the Israelis as equals. As long as this does not happen, the asymmetry in the balance of power between the two protagonists remains a major obstacle, and it is one Israel is unfairly using during negotiations to demand concessions their Palestinian interlocutors cannot deliver, or to cause crises in the discussions. This effectively allows Israel to postpone indefinitely any agreement based on a two-state solution, while also creating a situation on the ground that is prohibitive to the establishment of a territorially contiguous independent Palestinian state. Recognition of a Palestinian state would send a clear message from the international community to those who are hell-bent on annexation of the occupied West Bank and the building of Israeli settlements there. Whatever the setbacks along the way, the only viable and long-term sustainable solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians remains a two-state solution. The letter from British MPs is, therefore, a welcome contribution to the efforts to advance this cause, and the British government must heed its recommendations. • Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg
