British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Monday defended his plan to unilaterally rewrite Britain’s divorce deal with the European Union as an insurance policy against the bloc’s unreasonable behavior — even as his former attorney general joined the ranks of once-loyal lawmakers condemning the contentious move. Johnson said a planned law designed to override portions of the Brexit withdrawal agreement was needed because the EU might “go to extreme and unreasonable lengths” in its treatment of former member Britain.  “I have absolutely no desire to use these measures,” Johnson told lawmakers as he introduced the Internal Market Bill in the House of Commons. “They are an insurance policy.” Johnson’s Conservative government has acknowledged that the bill breaches the legally binding withdrawal treaty that Britain and the EU have both ratified. The legislation threatens to sink the already-foundering negotiations between Britain and the EU on a post-Brexit trade deal. The U.K. formally left the bloc on Jan. 31, but existing trade rules remain in effect until the end of this year under a transition designed to provide time to negotiate a long-term trade agreement. Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks in the House of Commons in London, Sept. 14, 2020, in a video grab from footage broadcast by the UK Parliament’s Parliamentary Recording Unit.Ed Milliband, business spokesman for the opposition Labour Party, accused Johnson of “trashing the reputation of this country and trashing the reputation of his office.” With an 80-seat majority in the House of Commons, Johnson is expected to have enough votes to push his legislation through Parliament despite opposition anger.  The bill easily cleared its first House of Commons vote by 340 to 263 on Monday. It will now face attempts to amend or overturn it during several days of detailed scrutiny by lawmakers before another vote. Critics of moveThere is wide unease within Johnson’s party about the law-breaking move. Geoffrey Cox, who was the government’s top legal officer when Johnson negotiated the Brexit withdrawal agreement less than a year ago, said reneging on the deal would be an “unconscionable” breach of international law.  “I simply cannot approve or endorse a situation in which we go back on our word, given solemnly,” Cox, previously a strong supporter of Johnson on Brexit, told Times Radio. “The breaking of the law ultimately leads to very long-term and permanent damage to this country’s reputation.” As part of the Brexit divorce deal, Britain and the EU agreed to keep Northern Ireland — the only part of the U.K. to share a border with the bloc — bound to some EU rules on trade, to avoid the need for border checks on goods moving between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Both sides accepted the compromise to protect the open border, which helps underpin the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Internal Market Bill would give the British government the power to override the EU’s agreed role in oversight of trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. Johnson claims the EU has threatened to use “an extreme interpretation” of the withdrawal agreement to “blockade” food shipments from the rest of the U.K. to Northern Ireland unless Britain agrees to accept EU regulations. The EU denies threatening a blockade and says it merely wants Britain to live up to the terms of the agreement. EU leaders are outraged at the prime minister’s proposal and have threatened the U.K. with legal action if it does not drop the proposal by the end of the month. Two former Conservative U.K. prime ministers, John Major and Theresa May, have condemned the legislation. On Monday a third, David Cameron, said he had “misgivings.” What mystifies some observers is that Johnson is repudiating a treaty that he himself negotiated and hailed as an “oven-ready” deal that would “get Brexit done.” That declaration of victory was key to Johnson’s successful December 2019 election campaign. “There was a political imperative on the government to get an agreement and then to go to the electorate with the claim that they had, to coin a phrase, got Brexit done,” said Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London.  “I think it possibly was the case in some senses that it was ‘make the agreement in haste and then repent at leisure.’ And what we’re seeing now is the repentance.”What’s next Johnson’s move has dynamited the dwindling trust between Britain and the EU as they try to negotiate a new trading relationship. Talks are due to continue this week in Brussels despite the chill in relations. Both sides say any deal must be agreed by next month so there is time for it to be ratified by Dec. 31. If there is no deal, tariffs and other impediments to trade will be imposed by both sides at the start of 2021. That would mean huge economic disruption for the U.K., which does half its trade with the bloc. A no-deal exit on Jan. 1 would also hit some EU nations, including Ireland, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, especially hard.  
 
…

Automaker Daimler AG and subsidiary Mercedes-Benz USA have agreed to pay $1.5 billion to the U.S. government and California state regulators to resolve emissions cheating allegations, officials said Monday. The U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency and the California Attorney General’s Office say Daimler violated environmental laws by using “defeat device software” to circumvent emissions testing and sold about 250,000 cars and vans in the U.S. with diesel engines that didn’t comply with state and federal laws. The settlement, which includes civil penalties, will also require Daimler to fix the vehicles, officials said. The Stuttgart, Germany-based automaker said on Aug. 13 that it had agreements with the Justice Department, Environmental Protection Agency, Customs and Border Protection, the California Air Resources Board and others over civil and environmental claims involving about 250,000 diesel cars and vans. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler speaks, during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Sept. 14, 2020.Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler said Daimler did not disclose all of its software, which included “devices designed to defeat emissions controls.”  Daimler denies it cheatedIn a statement, Daimler said it denies the allegations that it cheated and does not admit to any liability in the U.S. The settlements resolve civil proceedings without any determination that Mercedes and Daimler vehicles used defeat devices, the company said. Plus, Daimler said it did not receive a notice of violation of the Clean Air Act from the EPA or California regulators, which is common when defeat devices are used. The company said it is not obligated to buy back the vehicles, as Volkswagen was, nor will it have an independent monitor to track its progress on the settlement.  “By resolving these proceedings, Daimler avoids lengthy court actions with respective legal and financial risks,” the company said. Different systemsDaimler also said the emissions control system in U.S. vehicles is different than models sold in Europe because of different regulatory and legal requirements. Daimler AG said the settlement would bring costs of about $1.5 billion, while the civil settlement will bring a one-off charge of $875 million. It estimated that “further expenses of a mid-three-digit-million” euros would be required to fulfill conditions of the settlements. But the company didn’t make it clear just how the vehicles would be cleaned up or whether it was accused of any wrongdoing in the U.S. like Volkswagen, which paid $2.8 billion to settle a criminal case as a result of cheating. Fiat Chrysler also is being investigated for allegedly cheating on emissions. VW admitted that it turned on pollution controls when vehicles were being tested in EPA labs and turned them off when the diesel vehicles were on real roads. The company duped the EPA for years before being discovered by a nonprofit climate group and researchers at West Virginia University.  Cost sends a messageFILE – Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen speaks at the Justice Department in Washington, Nov. 5, 2019.U.S. Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said the cost of the settlement is likely to send a message to deter other companies from engaging in similar conduct.  “We expect that this relief will also serve to deter any others who may be tempted to violate our nation’s pollution laws in the future,” Rosen said. Daimler’s $875 million civil penalty amounts to about $3,500 for each vehicle that was sold in the U.S. The company will also be required to recall the vehicles and pay to fix them and will need to replace some old locomotive engines with newer, low nitrogen oxide-emitting engines that should offset the illegal emissions from its vehicles, Rosen said. A Justice Department official said the company did not have to admit guilt as part of the settlement.  In addition, officials in California will receive $17.5 million for future environmental enforcement, as well as to support environmentally beneficial projects in the state, officials said. FILE – California Attorney General Xavier Becerra speaks during a news conference in Sacramento, Calif., Dec. 4, 2019.”Long term, cheating isn’t the smartest way to market your product. Daimler is finding that out today. But they’re not the first — nor likely the last — to try,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. “Installing defeat device software on your vehicles to deceive emissions regulators doesn’t qualify as doing more. It just means you’ll pay more in penalties once we catch you. And we will, because cheaters really aren’t as smart as they think.”  Germany investigatingDaimler’s pollution practices also are under investigation in Germany, and civil lawsuits claim the vehicles emitted more pollutants than advertised.  In April 2016, the Justice Department asked Daimler to conduct an internal probe into its exhaust emissions certification process. The request came as the EPA began checking all diesel engines after the Volkswagen cheating was revealed.  Steve Berman, a Seattle attorney who sued Daimler over Mercedes diesel pollution, said in 2016 his firm hired a company to test Mercedes diesels on real roads, finding that they spewed out too much nitrogen oxide almost all the time. Berman accused Mercedes of having a defeat device that was similar to VW’s. In September 2019, federal prosecutors charged a Fiat Chrysler engineer with rigging pollution tests on more than 100,000 diesel pickup trucks and SUVs sold in the U.S., the first indictment since a wave of similar cases against Volkswagen and its managers. The alleged scheme isn’t as large as the Volkswagen emissions scandal, which involved nearly 600,000 vehicles. But the charges showed that investigators are still on the case, months after Fiat Chrysler agreed to a $650 million civil settlement and said it would fix Jeep Grand Cherokees and Ram 1500 trucks with “EcoDiesel” engines made between 2014 and 2016. Prosecutors alleged the engineer manipulated software to make the pollution control system perform differently under government testing than during regular driving.  
…

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday granted a $1.5 billion loan to Belarus as a show of support for its embattled leader, Alexander Lukashenko, after weeks of street demonstrations that have accused him of rigging last month’s election to retain power in Minsk. The two leaders met at the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi for nearly four hours. Putin gave few details about the loan, although the Kremlin later said some of the new money would be used to refinance earlier loans. Russia also said the two presidents had agreed to boost trade cooperation and discussed energy supplies. Law enforcement officers detain demonstrators during a rally to protest the presidential election results in Minsk, Sept. 13, 2020.As for the protests, Putin said, “We want Belarusians themselves, without prompting and pressure from outside, to sort out this situation in a calm manner and through dialogue and to find a common solution.”Putin said defense cooperation between Russia and Belarus would continue. Russian news agencies reported Moscow was sending paratroopers to Belarus for joint “Slavic Brotherhood” exercises. Belarus authorities have cracked down on the demonstrations, detaining 774 on Sunday out of the estimated 100,000 who marched and chanted epithets against Lukashenko. He has denied rigging the August 9 election against opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who has fled to Lithuania. FILE – Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya interacts with supporters in Warsaw, Poland, Sept. 9, 2020.Tsikhanouskaya, on social media, criticized the awarding of the loan to Belarus. “Dear Russians! Your taxes will pay for our beatings,” she said. “We are sure that you would not want that. This may prolong the death throes of Lukashenko, but it cannot prevent the victory of the people.” The United Nations human rights council says it will hold an urgent debate on the violence in Belarus.  In the Sunday protests, throngs marched through Minsk toward a government district, chanting, “Long live Belarus” and “You’re a rat,” a common taunt targeting Lukashenko. Coming to a halt, they chanted “fascists” as hundreds of riot police with shields blocked a road. The Interfax Russian news agency reported that shots were fired into the air to keep protesters away from an area of Minsk where the Belarusian leadership lives. 
 
…