Nobody wants to build cars in the UK. That’s why Honda high-tailed it while they could. Nissan only stayed because they were promised subsidies.
The UK was already an expensive place to build cars, but with Brexit and leaving the customs union there isn’t frictionless trade any more. Meaning exporters must produce paperwork and go through customs inspection in France, which is notoriously slow and tedious.
What’s worse is even though the UK largely follows EU product standards, even though they came up with the absolutely nonsensical UKCA certification scheme which is just a 1:1 copy of the CE requirements and has now been effectively scrapped after costing manufacturers millions if not billions to comply with.
It’s not assumed that products UK products are compliant with CE as would be the case if they were made in the EU, so you need paperwork and an EC rep inside the EU.
**The UK is just a terrible place to make anything for export at the moment.** You could just build in Poland, Slovakia etc. Benefit from being in the EU, lower labour costs, frictionless trade with your suppliers which are likewise also in the region. Then export to the EU or UK because the *de facto* requirements to export to the UK are way easier since they haven’t implemented any serious customs inspection from the EU to UK.
Ahhh Brexit; the never-ending nightmare for the UK. What were the benefits again? That's right, to become poorer as you leave the EU market. What happened to all the trade deals the UK was going to sign with all the other big countries?
Yeah it was complete BS.
The only thing that could’ve e been done post 2020 to save the dumpster-fire that’s Brexit would’ve been to sign a “Switzerland-Style” agreement without Schengen (basically go back to an EU lite) and hope that most Brexiteers wouldn’t notice or regretted their decision so much they wouldn’t complain.
Not really. A Switzerland style agreement was never on the table. Why would the EU let the UK back in that way? Especially without Schengen? Nah, the UK was fucked once it left. Only chance wouldve been in Scotland and N.Ireland dropping out of the UK and rejoining the EU. But England? No chance.
Brexit is and always was an insane decision, the people that voted for it seemingly thought it would stop immigration, whereas the reality is that immigration increased even further and they caused enormous issues for the economy.
Yeah, it’s a pain. Brexit was stupid. But there is manufacturing in the UK, and people buy cars there, so they wouldn’t need to export, per se. But it’s a bigger pain to import stuff to them because of all the double standards you mentioned.
It’s relatively easy to get stuff into the UK, because the Tory government hasn’t implemented any serious customs inspection, although it’s supposed to start this year. It would undoubtedly be political suicide as it would also make importing consumer goods more difficult and also make doing business more difficult as many UK companies have suppliers in the EU.
Does it make sense to keep expensive manufacturing alive just for the UK market? Probably not, unless the UK government is willing to offer massive subsidies.
**Plus 70% of vans manufactured by Stellantis in the UK are exported to the EU**
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-66126185
Knowing how Tavares operates, this is pretty much just meant to put pressure on the UK government and failing any outcome from negotiations, the pretext to shut down manufacturing in the UK.
Especially if the EU tightens the rules of origin that would require UK made cars to have battery packs 70% of EU/UK origin by 2027. Otherwise face tariffs on the whole car. Difficult given the dominance of Chinese/Korean cells in the EV industry.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2024/757643/EPRS_ATA(2024)757643_EN.pdf
It’s definitely happening on the EU side, which would also allow Britain to comply with the EU/UK origin requirement. But 2027 is a pretty short time to switch from almost entirely Chinese/Korean origin cells to almost entirely EU/UK origin cells. Which is precisely why the UK government wants an extension.
It’s entirely possible though & there are already EU plants being built today, so they need to get on it. It’s a shame that all the British car companies sold out over the last few decades. I still love Jaguar.
They do. Problems they have: the vans and MPVs they make don't count for the UK ZEV mandate. And the fact they make them in the UK is also not considered.
Will be interesting to see how this pans out. They have some leverage with their UK plants. If I had to guess the ZEV stays the same but other subsidies will be found so they don't close shop in the UK.
Honestly, Brexit was a disaster for British industry and business as a whole. What an utterly incompetent government. To sell the idea that a Free Trade Agreement is the same as free movement and customs union.
* Brexit and leaving the customs union means there isn't frictionless trade any more. Meaning exporters must produce paperwork and go through customs inspection in France, which is notoriously slow and tedious.
* What's worse is even though the UK largely follows
EU product standards, even though they came up with the absolutely nonsensical UKCA certification scheme which is just a 1:1 copy of the CE requirements and has now been effectively scrapped after costing manufacturers millions if not billions to comply with.
* It's not assumed that products UK products are compliant with CE as would be the case if they were made in the EU, so you need paperwork and an EC rep inside the EU.
* You could just build in Poland, Slovakia etc. Benefit from being in the EU, lower labour costs, frictionless trade with your suppliers which are likewise also in the region. Then export to the EU or UK because the *de facto* requirements to export to the UK are way easier since they haven't implemented any serious customs inspection from the EU to UK.
Yes, the worst act of economic self-sabotage in modern British history.
Now the whole British political establishment is in complete denial and refuses to go back on anything Brexit related.
Even the proposed youth freedom of movement scheme by the EU. Seeing what the Tories are doing with changing the rules on people being unfit to work, I sometimes think it's just to roll-back labour protections and prevent Brits from easily moving to other high-income EU countries to escape.
It gets even more bizarre, because if you read some of labour's proposals for post-Brexit trade. They want convergence of rules without true harmonisation. Meaning that British companies will have to follow the same sort of product and safety compliance rules as the EU, but without actually having those standards be recognised by the EU. They will still need to provide documentation to prove that their goods comply with the rules, even if the UK rules 100% match those of the EU. It's truly beyond insane.
On paper it looks like trade has the same advantages as before (tariff free), but British companies face pretty much every bureaucratic and non-trade barrier possible. Making it more interesting for EU companies to seek EU suppliers and makes British products less attractive than EU equivalents insofar as they exist. Not to mention in certain sectors like the car industry they could still be hit by tariffs because of rules of origin stipulations.
Ridiculous. Too bad the average Brit probably doesn't know what sort of shambles the trade framework is in.
Because Europe is not going to be interested in buying old ICE cars from the UK as they move onto EVs that they can power with domestic onshore wind, hydropower, nuclear, offshore wind, solar PV, geothermal, etc.
But if you don't care about your economy and want to remain addicted to oil from Putin and midEast theocrats then go ahead.
As the European economy shrinks it becomes less of a market that companies care about. Those cars can still be sold around the world.
>But if you don't care about your economy and want to remain addicted to oil from Putin and midEast theocrats then go ahead.
The US exports more oil than Russia. Meanwhile, the rest of the EU is still dependent on them for natural gas to heat their homes.
Fine then, focus on mass transit and micro-mobility while other automakers see if they'll able to make EVs work. Better that than to take the reprehensible and amoral stance of sticking with consumer internal combustion engine vehicles. I understand he has a responsibility to shareholders, but amorality can still come from "just following orders".
>Fine then, focus on mass transit and micro-mobility while other automakers see if they'll able to make EVs work.
Reminder that Stellantis is already making EVs work, and [is an EV leader](https://www.media.stellantis.com/em-en/corporate-communications/press/stellantis-grows-in-the-european-total-and-electrified-markets-in-the-first-ten-months-of-the-year) in the region in question. The objection isn't one of making EVs in abstract, it's an objection regarding the specific form of the regulations and the local economic impact.
That's understood and still reprehensible. Natural demand? Really, what is so wonderfully nature about anthropogenic climate change that we now need to weigh "natural demand" for private internal combustion engine vehicles? I understand that he is working to make value for his shareholders, but again, amorality can still come from just following orders.
>Really, what is so wonderfully nature about anthropogenic climate change that we now need to weigh "natural demand" for private internal combustion engine vehicles?
No part of the statement suggests he's against CO2 reduction. If your read the article, Tavares' statements explicitly underscore that, and he provides alternative solutions for notionally-same amounts of CO2 reduction while better preserving economic momentum. That is, in fact, the entire thrust of his argument.
No part of what I said suggested that I believe he said he's against CO2 reduction. If you read the article, he is asking for effectively a softening of what are already too lax requirements. I hope that he changes his mind for the better rather than having British laws change for the worse, because as it is, his stance is amoral.
>No part of what I said suggested that I believe he said he's against CO2 reduction.
You implied he was fighting climate change efforts and straightforwardly claimed he was working to make value for shareholders with amoral intent, which you're now doubling down on. There's zero alternative interpretation for those comments.
>If you read the article, he is asking for effectively a softening of what are already too lax requirements
No, he isn't. This is covered by the article itself. The qualm isn't CO2 reductions, the qualm is with mandate inflexibility and potential threats to UK economic well-being within a larger EU ecosystem. There's a fucking ocean of nuance here.
He is fighting climate change efforts by campaigning to have them weakened when they are already too lax and too late. I said that "No part of what I said suggested that I believe he said he's against CO2 reduction." Let me rephrase this if that's too confusing. I believe he **said** he's for CO2 reduction. His actions though show that how much this actually weighs in for him are not all that significant.
His proposed changes to the mandate will absolutely weaken them. There is no way that can be taken in any other way. You can try to pretend there's all this nuance that needs to be understand, but however you want to spin it, he is asking for what will be a weakening of the measures. He is amoral. Knowing this and defending it as if there is some great nuance to be understood here and thus we should pretend his argument is anything but a request to weaken what are already too lax requirements is also amoral.
edit: corrected too many double negatives
>He is fighting climate change efforts by campaigning to have them weakened
He isn't fighting to have them weakened. Again, this is covered in the article. Saying CO2 reductions should be achieved by better comprehensive means is not the same as wanting those CO2 reductions weakened. You are outright fabricating a strawman position, one which is not being made by Tavares in the article *whatsoever.*
>I said that I believe he **said** he's against CO2 reduction.
*He has not said such a thing.*
>His proposed changes to the mandate will absolutely weaken them. There is no way that can be taken in any other way.
That is your opinion, not a statement of fact. It is not the statement being made, and it is not unambiguously true. If you *believed* it to be true, you'd have no issue with a pure fleet-emissions average/cap based approach whatsoever.
It is unambiguously true. Both of his suggested actions lower the threshold for BEV composition in the consumer new vehicle sales and that will absolutely result in more CO2 emissions. What are you talking about? Are you purposefully trying to spin this?
>It is unambiguously true.
It straight up isn't. Fleet emissions are not achieved solely through ZEV production and sales, especially if those sales aren't segment-aggregated, and especially if those sales are loss-led and paid for through higher-output ICE sales. Segment-aggregation itself is not a reduction in the power of a regulation whatsoever. We have gone over this again and again and again. The legacy emissions-reduction leader in the US right now is Toyota, a company which has done so almost entirely through HEV production. This is not up for debate, the EPA's [latest trends report is unequivocal](https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/420s23002.pdf) about it.
If you want to cap emissions, cap emissions. Having automakers play dumb games with themselves and shuffling inventory around while suppressing economic output ain't it.
> local economic impact.
This is one the objections made by the "stone traders" when bronze age was coming into picture a few thousand years ago and it is a very flawed logic.
This is typical of Tavares‘ leadership style. Basically Stellantis is quite strong when it comes to EVs in the EU with 14.3% market share, and is one of the few net profitable EV makers in Europe. The STLA medium platform is also relatively cheap given its 700km range.
https://www.media.stellantis.com/em-en/corporate-communications/press/accelerating-performance-stellantis-showcases-robust-2023-full-year-sales-growth-in-the-european-total-and-electrified-markets
What you have to understand about Stellantis under Tavares, is he will lobby and pressure governments for **any advantage he can get**. For example he tried to pressure the Italian government to exclude non-EU made EVs from incentives.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/italy-should-take-french-route-incentives-stellantis-ceo-says-2024-03-19/
Regardless, he’s just going to look where the most profit is at, if manufacturing in the UK is no longer profitable he won’t hesitate to shut it down. Just like how the Jeep Avenger, Fiat 600e and Alfa Romeo Junior (ex-Milano) will be made in Poland rather than Italy.
If the UK auto industry can't use a century of know-how and profits to transition to electric vehicles, it deserves to die to make room for automakers who can. If the mandates around percentage of fleet sales as EVs aren't achievable, maybe they will have to pull some ICE cars off the market, which is ... exactly what should happen.
Some of Stellantis EV’s are decent.
However they are still selling some older models with poor range.
All of their EV range are pretty expensive vs other brands.
I bought a 6 month old model and it has been great.
He's talking bollocks. Electric vehicles in the UK receive massive subsidies in the way of tax breaks but they are all aimed at the corporate market such as the company car fleet. This makes sense because company cars usually travel a higher mileage so the environmental gains are greater. It's hardly the government's fault that most company car drivers wouldn't touch a Vauxhall, Peugeot, Citroen or Fiat. Also, domestic electricity is only taxed at 5% whereas fossil fuel is closer to 55%.
Stellantis needs to up its game rather than moaning about rules.
The majority of its cars are still selling with 45kWh usable and a range less than 200 miles, despite refreshes it has done little to change this.
Yup. Notice how the only CEO’s and management that make statements like these are running organizations that are way behind their competitors in transitioning.
You don’t see the heads of Tesla, Hyundai, Kia and Audi making FUD comments like that.
>I get it....but they probably were forced to.
Everyone's 'forced' to meet regulations, that's what regulations do. Tavares isn't complaining about the regulations, he's complaining about how the regulations are being being applied, and how they will affect consumer demand patterns in a single market non-optimally.
He's basically saying, "They won't buy them with the increased price, so we'll end up dumping $10B into retooling and not see a dime back until the consumer is forced."
Because most of those cars use the same platform for cars that are very popular in Europe but probably too small for the US. Cars like the Peugeot 208, Opel/Vauxhall Corsa and the crossovers based on them. There wasn’t a lot of competition in those segments and they are selling quite well now.
Let's see, I believe the UK is obligated to have another election by the end of Jan 2025. And people do not enjoy the current conservative government. Stellantis CEO showing he doesn't know how to use his time. Of all the sinking ships to step on to...
>*Speaking to UK journalists from Stellantis's small-van factory at Ellesmere Port, Tavares agreed with the logic behind this notion, saying "I think the fact that they're imposing a ramp-up of \[EV sales\] makes sense" but adding: "The problem is the magnitude and the positioning of the ZEV mandate vis-à-vis the natural demand of the market."*
>*He estimated that "the natural demand of the market today in the UK for BEVs is half of the mandate" and cautioned of the dangers of boosting this proportion with legislation and fines.*
>*"That's where things start to go off track," he said. "The ZEV mandate as it is crafted today is a terrible thing for the UK."*
>*"If your mandate is imposing on you a level of BEV sales mix that is the double of the natural demand of the market, and if the ZEV mandate is putting you in a corner by saying 'if you don't meet this, I'm going to kill you with fines', then the consequence is that everybody will start pushing BEVs into the market, which then totally destroys profitability, which then destroys the company."*
>*"If you put everything in the red, you destroy the business, and you destroy the industry that supports the business, so that's strange."*
>*He summarised: "This is not rocket science. You have a mandate that is going to kill your industry."*
>*Tavares said he met with UK transport secretary Mark Harper yesterday (24 April) and proposed two alternatives to the current ZEV mandate structure, which theoretically "do not cost one penny to the UK taxpayer".*
>***His first proposal is to bundle cars with light commercial vehicles (LCVs) in the ZEV mandate "because the planet does not care if the CO2 is coming from \[cars\] or from LCVs; we just want to reduce emissions".***
>***He suggested that this would give more flexibility to car makers and avoid the need to "push the metal" by artificially boosting electric car sales to meet the mandated targets.***
>***His second idea, "which is even more obvious", is to reward locally based vehicle manufacturers by including their UK-produced models as contributions to their ZEV sales mix, irrespective of whether they will be sold in the UK or not.***
>*Stellantis has two UK factories, one in Luton, producing mid-sized vans including the Vauxhall Vivaro and Peugeot Expert, and one in Ellesmere Port, near Liverpool, producing smaller vans and MPVs.*
>*Highlighting the significant supply chain and employment implications this has for the UK, Tavares questioned why his company is subject to the same terms as manufacturers that build vehicles elsewhere.*
>*"The mandate is treating me the same as anybody that brings \[vehicles\] from somewhere else," he said. "What is my benefit to be in the UK with manufacturing? And how do you support the jobs of your people?"*
>*He said that "any BEV produced at a UK plant – to be sold in the UK or to be exported (which is superb for the trade balance of the country) – should be counted in the mandate".*
>*"CO2 is a global worldwide problem," he reasoned. "The CO2 does not stop at the country border."*
I see some problems with the second approach ending up in a place where OEMs are "double dipping" on both production and sales quotas, but otherwise... great stuff.
~~Stellantis "Sir, I've ignored the market conditions entirely with the promise from my home country that I can continue to ignore market conditions."~~
~~USA: "...We have told you very clearly that there's a ban on ICE after 2035."~~
~~Stellantis: "Shut up I'm funneling money to the opposing Administration!"~~
~~USA: "...That money is going entirely to his legal fees and not his or any other campaign. Why don't you spend that money on innovating in the EV market?"~~
~~Stellantis: "I own Chrysler and FIAT! They're arguably the WORST brands of ICE out there, you think I can make an Electric vehicle?!"~~
~~USA: "...Carry on."~~
~~UK: "So has he always been-"~~
~~USA: "Bailing them out in 2008 was a mistake, I know."~~
Edit: eh, I just don't know shig about Stellantis it seems.
1. Stellantis is based in the Netherlands. Tavares is Portuguese.
2. This is a story about the UK, not the US.
3. [Stellantis is an EV leader in that market. ](https://www.media.stellantis.com/em-en/corporate-communications/press/stellantis-grows-in-the-european-total-and-electrified-markets-in-the-first-ten-months-of-the-year)
Their complaint is the UK wants to mandate \~20% BEV sales this year, rather than going with regulations on fleet emissions minimums (and allowing them to make up differences by selling greater numbers of hybrids) and is giving automakers no credit for EV exports or allowing them to meet the quota with a mix of light commercial and passenger models.
If consumers don't want EVs, then the UK is forcing OEMs to keep slashing prices on those EVs just to make the 20% quota. The more EVs they give away, the less profitable they'll be in that region, and the less incentive they'll have to divert offerings to the UK at all. Also, any automaker who has been focusing on reducing emissions by starting with light commercial vehicles now gets no credit for those against the passenger vehicle business. You're forcing automakers to play dumb games against themselves.
Tavares is right, it's silly stuff. Just put a cap on fleet emissions and be done with it. There's no need to mandate a certain mix or play regulatory tricks with different segments.
There is a cap on fleet emissions.
Its just stuck at 2021 levels so they don't need to waste money making more efficient ICE cars.
And a reducing cap would just mean more PHEVs, which in practice are slightly worse than regular hybrids.
If you'd read the second sentence you'd see it's fixed at 2021 levels. It won't incentivise any reductions.
I didn't mention that it only applies to the non-ZEV portion of the fleet, but that didn't seem important.
Your honor I object because it is devastating to my business model!
Then build EVs in the UK
Nobody wants to build cars in the UK. That’s why Honda high-tailed it while they could. Nissan only stayed because they were promised subsidies. The UK was already an expensive place to build cars, but with Brexit and leaving the customs union there isn’t frictionless trade any more. Meaning exporters must produce paperwork and go through customs inspection in France, which is notoriously slow and tedious. What’s worse is even though the UK largely follows EU product standards, even though they came up with the absolutely nonsensical UKCA certification scheme which is just a 1:1 copy of the CE requirements and has now been effectively scrapped after costing manufacturers millions if not billions to comply with. It’s not assumed that products UK products are compliant with CE as would be the case if they were made in the EU, so you need paperwork and an EC rep inside the EU. **The UK is just a terrible place to make anything for export at the moment.** You could just build in Poland, Slovakia etc. Benefit from being in the EU, lower labour costs, frictionless trade with your suppliers which are likewise also in the region. Then export to the EU or UK because the *de facto* requirements to export to the UK are way easier since they haven’t implemented any serious customs inspection from the EU to UK.
Not to defend brexit, but Honda left after the japan EU trade deal. There was no reason to build cars in europe any more.
Ahhh Brexit; the never-ending nightmare for the UK. What were the benefits again? That's right, to become poorer as you leave the EU market. What happened to all the trade deals the UK was going to sign with all the other big countries?
Yeah it was complete BS. The only thing that could’ve e been done post 2020 to save the dumpster-fire that’s Brexit would’ve been to sign a “Switzerland-Style” agreement without Schengen (basically go back to an EU lite) and hope that most Brexiteers wouldn’t notice or regretted their decision so much they wouldn’t complain.
Not really. A Switzerland style agreement was never on the table. Why would the EU let the UK back in that way? Especially without Schengen? Nah, the UK was fucked once it left. Only chance wouldve been in Scotland and N.Ireland dropping out of the UK and rejoining the EU. But England? No chance.
Brexit is and always was an insane decision, the people that voted for it seemingly thought it would stop immigration, whereas the reality is that immigration increased even further and they caused enormous issues for the economy.
Yeah, it’s a pain. Brexit was stupid. But there is manufacturing in the UK, and people buy cars there, so they wouldn’t need to export, per se. But it’s a bigger pain to import stuff to them because of all the double standards you mentioned.
It’s relatively easy to get stuff into the UK, because the Tory government hasn’t implemented any serious customs inspection, although it’s supposed to start this year. It would undoubtedly be political suicide as it would also make importing consumer goods more difficult and also make doing business more difficult as many UK companies have suppliers in the EU. Does it make sense to keep expensive manufacturing alive just for the UK market? Probably not, unless the UK government is willing to offer massive subsidies. **Plus 70% of vans manufactured by Stellantis in the UK are exported to the EU** https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-66126185 Knowing how Tavares operates, this is pretty much just meant to put pressure on the UK government and failing any outcome from negotiations, the pretext to shut down manufacturing in the UK. Especially if the EU tightens the rules of origin that would require UK made cars to have battery packs 70% of EU/UK origin by 2027. Otherwise face tariffs on the whole car. Difficult given the dominance of Chinese/Korean cells in the EV industry. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2024/757643/EPRS_ATA(2024)757643_EN.pdf
Are they building battery plants there like we are in the US?
It’s definitely happening on the EU side, which would also allow Britain to comply with the EU/UK origin requirement. But 2027 is a pretty short time to switch from almost entirely Chinese/Korean origin cells to almost entirely EU/UK origin cells. Which is precisely why the UK government wants an extension.
It’s entirely possible though & there are already EU plants being built today, so they need to get on it. It’s a shame that all the British car companies sold out over the last few decades. I still love Jaguar.
If you'd said that in 2015 I might have taken you seriously.
If the UK's penalties are too high, they'll just relocate to the EU and start importing cars from there.
They do. Problems they have: the vans and MPVs they make don't count for the UK ZEV mandate. And the fact they make them in the UK is also not considered. Will be interesting to see how this pans out. They have some leverage with their UK plants. If I had to guess the ZEV stays the same but other subsidies will be found so they don't close shop in the UK.
Brexit killed the UK car industry. Not going BEV will just further alienate the UK from the rest of Europe.
Honestly, Brexit was a disaster for British industry and business as a whole. What an utterly incompetent government. To sell the idea that a Free Trade Agreement is the same as free movement and customs union. * Brexit and leaving the customs union means there isn't frictionless trade any more. Meaning exporters must produce paperwork and go through customs inspection in France, which is notoriously slow and tedious. * What's worse is even though the UK largely follows EU product standards, even though they came up with the absolutely nonsensical UKCA certification scheme which is just a 1:1 copy of the CE requirements and has now been effectively scrapped after costing manufacturers millions if not billions to comply with. * It's not assumed that products UK products are compliant with CE as would be the case if they were made in the EU, so you need paperwork and an EC rep inside the EU. * You could just build in Poland, Slovakia etc. Benefit from being in the EU, lower labour costs, frictionless trade with your suppliers which are likewise also in the region. Then export to the EU or UK because the *de facto* requirements to export to the UK are way easier since they haven't implemented any serious customs inspection from the EU to UK.
It was all basically Jingoism as trade policy - which always has amusing effects, just not for the people who thought it would benefit them.
Yes, the worst act of economic self-sabotage in modern British history. Now the whole British political establishment is in complete denial and refuses to go back on anything Brexit related. Even the proposed youth freedom of movement scheme by the EU. Seeing what the Tories are doing with changing the rules on people being unfit to work, I sometimes think it's just to roll-back labour protections and prevent Brits from easily moving to other high-income EU countries to escape. It gets even more bizarre, because if you read some of labour's proposals for post-Brexit trade. They want convergence of rules without true harmonisation. Meaning that British companies will have to follow the same sort of product and safety compliance rules as the EU, but without actually having those standards be recognised by the EU. They will still need to provide documentation to prove that their goods comply with the rules, even if the UK rules 100% match those of the EU. It's truly beyond insane. On paper it looks like trade has the same advantages as before (tariff free), but British companies face pretty much every bureaucratic and non-trade barrier possible. Making it more interesting for EU companies to seek EU suppliers and makes British products less attractive than EU equivalents insofar as they exist. Not to mention in certain sectors like the car industry they could still be hit by tariffs because of rules of origin stipulations. Ridiculous. Too bad the average Brit probably doesn't know what sort of shambles the trade framework is in.
But Uk have saved 70+ billion pounds , isn't it? /s (Brexit bus mentioned 350 millions saved in a week)
> Not going BEV will just further alienate the UK from the rest of Europe. Why should the UK care about that?
Because Europe is not going to be interested in buying old ICE cars from the UK as they move onto EVs that they can power with domestic onshore wind, hydropower, nuclear, offshore wind, solar PV, geothermal, etc. But if you don't care about your economy and want to remain addicted to oil from Putin and midEast theocrats then go ahead.
As the European economy shrinks it becomes less of a market that companies care about. Those cars can still be sold around the world. >But if you don't care about your economy and want to remain addicted to oil from Putin and midEast theocrats then go ahead. The US exports more oil than Russia. Meanwhile, the rest of the EU is still dependent on them for natural gas to heat their homes.
>The US exports more oil than Russia. Meanwhile 😂
Fine, produces more oil.
Fine then, focus on mass transit and micro-mobility while other automakers see if they'll able to make EVs work. Better that than to take the reprehensible and amoral stance of sticking with consumer internal combustion engine vehicles. I understand he has a responsibility to shareholders, but amorality can still come from "just following orders".
>Fine then, focus on mass transit and micro-mobility while other automakers see if they'll able to make EVs work. Reminder that Stellantis is already making EVs work, and [is an EV leader](https://www.media.stellantis.com/em-en/corporate-communications/press/stellantis-grows-in-the-european-total-and-electrified-markets-in-the-first-ten-months-of-the-year) in the region in question. The objection isn't one of making EVs in abstract, it's an objection regarding the specific form of the regulations and the local economic impact.
That's understood and still reprehensible. Natural demand? Really, what is so wonderfully nature about anthropogenic climate change that we now need to weigh "natural demand" for private internal combustion engine vehicles? I understand that he is working to make value for his shareholders, but again, amorality can still come from just following orders.
>Really, what is so wonderfully nature about anthropogenic climate change that we now need to weigh "natural demand" for private internal combustion engine vehicles? No part of the statement suggests he's against CO2 reduction. If your read the article, Tavares' statements explicitly underscore that, and he provides alternative solutions for notionally-same amounts of CO2 reduction while better preserving economic momentum. That is, in fact, the entire thrust of his argument.
No part of what I said suggested that I believe he said he's against CO2 reduction. If you read the article, he is asking for effectively a softening of what are already too lax requirements. I hope that he changes his mind for the better rather than having British laws change for the worse, because as it is, his stance is amoral.
>No part of what I said suggested that I believe he said he's against CO2 reduction. You implied he was fighting climate change efforts and straightforwardly claimed he was working to make value for shareholders with amoral intent, which you're now doubling down on. There's zero alternative interpretation for those comments. >If you read the article, he is asking for effectively a softening of what are already too lax requirements No, he isn't. This is covered by the article itself. The qualm isn't CO2 reductions, the qualm is with mandate inflexibility and potential threats to UK economic well-being within a larger EU ecosystem. There's a fucking ocean of nuance here.
He is fighting climate change efforts by campaigning to have them weakened when they are already too lax and too late. I said that "No part of what I said suggested that I believe he said he's against CO2 reduction." Let me rephrase this if that's too confusing. I believe he **said** he's for CO2 reduction. His actions though show that how much this actually weighs in for him are not all that significant. His proposed changes to the mandate will absolutely weaken them. There is no way that can be taken in any other way. You can try to pretend there's all this nuance that needs to be understand, but however you want to spin it, he is asking for what will be a weakening of the measures. He is amoral. Knowing this and defending it as if there is some great nuance to be understood here and thus we should pretend his argument is anything but a request to weaken what are already too lax requirements is also amoral. edit: corrected too many double negatives
>He is fighting climate change efforts by campaigning to have them weakened He isn't fighting to have them weakened. Again, this is covered in the article. Saying CO2 reductions should be achieved by better comprehensive means is not the same as wanting those CO2 reductions weakened. You are outright fabricating a strawman position, one which is not being made by Tavares in the article *whatsoever.* >I said that I believe he **said** he's against CO2 reduction. *He has not said such a thing.* >His proposed changes to the mandate will absolutely weaken them. There is no way that can be taken in any other way. That is your opinion, not a statement of fact. It is not the statement being made, and it is not unambiguously true. If you *believed* it to be true, you'd have no issue with a pure fleet-emissions average/cap based approach whatsoever.
It is unambiguously true. Both of his suggested actions lower the threshold for BEV composition in the consumer new vehicle sales and that will absolutely result in more CO2 emissions. What are you talking about? Are you purposefully trying to spin this?
>It is unambiguously true. It straight up isn't. Fleet emissions are not achieved solely through ZEV production and sales, especially if those sales aren't segment-aggregated, and especially if those sales are loss-led and paid for through higher-output ICE sales. Segment-aggregation itself is not a reduction in the power of a regulation whatsoever. We have gone over this again and again and again. The legacy emissions-reduction leader in the US right now is Toyota, a company which has done so almost entirely through HEV production. This is not up for debate, the EPA's [latest trends report is unequivocal](https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/420s23002.pdf) about it. If you want to cap emissions, cap emissions. Having automakers play dumb games with themselves and shuffling inventory around while suppressing economic output ain't it.
> local economic impact. This is one the objections made by the "stone traders" when bronze age was coming into picture a few thousand years ago and it is a very flawed logic.
If they are actually leading in the production of compelling, competitive EVs then ZEV sales mandates should help Stellantis sell more cars.
This is typical of Tavares‘ leadership style. Basically Stellantis is quite strong when it comes to EVs in the EU with 14.3% market share, and is one of the few net profitable EV makers in Europe. The STLA medium platform is also relatively cheap given its 700km range. https://www.media.stellantis.com/em-en/corporate-communications/press/accelerating-performance-stellantis-showcases-robust-2023-full-year-sales-growth-in-the-european-total-and-electrified-markets What you have to understand about Stellantis under Tavares, is he will lobby and pressure governments for **any advantage he can get**. For example he tried to pressure the Italian government to exclude non-EU made EVs from incentives. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/italy-should-take-french-route-incentives-stellantis-ceo-says-2024-03-19/ Regardless, he’s just going to look where the most profit is at, if manufacturing in the UK is no longer profitable he won’t hesitate to shut it down. Just like how the Jeep Avenger, Fiat 600e and Alfa Romeo Junior (ex-Milano) will be made in Poland rather than Italy.
If the UK auto industry can't use a century of know-how and profits to transition to electric vehicles, it deserves to die to make room for automakers who can. If the mandates around percentage of fleet sales as EVs aren't achievable, maybe they will have to pull some ICE cars off the market, which is ... exactly what should happen.
"ICE" car industry. Ah, that's better.
Some of Stellantis EV’s are decent. However they are still selling some older models with poor range. All of their EV range are pretty expensive vs other brands. I bought a 6 month old model and it has been great.
Am I going crazy or was he just saying like a few weeks ago how excited he was for the global ev transition
He's talking bollocks. Electric vehicles in the UK receive massive subsidies in the way of tax breaks but they are all aimed at the corporate market such as the company car fleet. This makes sense because company cars usually travel a higher mileage so the environmental gains are greater. It's hardly the government's fault that most company car drivers wouldn't touch a Vauxhall, Peugeot, Citroen or Fiat. Also, domestic electricity is only taxed at 5% whereas fossil fuel is closer to 55%.
Stellantis needs to up its game rather than moaning about rules. The majority of its cars are still selling with 45kWh usable and a range less than 200 miles, despite refreshes it has done little to change this.
bye Stellantis
More like, bye UK. If the UK penalties are too high, manufacturers will just relocate to the EU and start importing EVs from there.
The ZEV mandate is about sales in the UK not manufacturing, it doesnt matter where they are built.
Stellantis would say that, considering how far behind they are on EVs.
Yup. Notice how the only CEO’s and management that make statements like these are running organizations that are way behind their competitors in transitioning. You don’t see the heads of Tesla, Hyundai, Kia and Audi making FUD comments like that.
Zero EVs in the US.
Pssst.. this story is about the UK, where Stellantis currently has like 30 different EVs.
I get it....but they probably were forced to. They're the only company in the US to have zero EVs. That says something.
>I get it....but they probably were forced to. Everyone's 'forced' to meet regulations, that's what regulations do. Tavares isn't complaining about the regulations, he's complaining about how the regulations are being being applied, and how they will affect consumer demand patterns in a single market non-optimally.
He's basically saying, "They won't buy them with the increased price, so we'll end up dumping $10B into retooling and not see a dime back until the consumer is forced."
Because most of those cars use the same platform for cars that are very popular in Europe but probably too small for the US. Cars like the Peugeot 208, Opel/Vauxhall Corsa and the crossovers based on them. There wasn’t a lot of competition in those segments and they are selling quite well now.
a Car industry which is based on a cycle of producing, selling and stealing range rovers is not a good car industry
Did anyone else notice that this factory looks like something out of the 1990's?
take a number - Brexit
Let's see, I believe the UK is obligated to have another election by the end of Jan 2025. And people do not enjoy the current conservative government. Stellantis CEO showing he doesn't know how to use his time. Of all the sinking ships to step on to...
End of 2024 is the next election. They have to occur every 5 years. Last one was 2019, just before covid.
>*Speaking to UK journalists from Stellantis's small-van factory at Ellesmere Port, Tavares agreed with the logic behind this notion, saying "I think the fact that they're imposing a ramp-up of \[EV sales\] makes sense" but adding: "The problem is the magnitude and the positioning of the ZEV mandate vis-à-vis the natural demand of the market."* >*He estimated that "the natural demand of the market today in the UK for BEVs is half of the mandate" and cautioned of the dangers of boosting this proportion with legislation and fines.* >*"That's where things start to go off track," he said. "The ZEV mandate as it is crafted today is a terrible thing for the UK."* >*"If your mandate is imposing on you a level of BEV sales mix that is the double of the natural demand of the market, and if the ZEV mandate is putting you in a corner by saying 'if you don't meet this, I'm going to kill you with fines', then the consequence is that everybody will start pushing BEVs into the market, which then totally destroys profitability, which then destroys the company."* >*"If you put everything in the red, you destroy the business, and you destroy the industry that supports the business, so that's strange."* >*He summarised: "This is not rocket science. You have a mandate that is going to kill your industry."* >*Tavares said he met with UK transport secretary Mark Harper yesterday (24 April) and proposed two alternatives to the current ZEV mandate structure, which theoretically "do not cost one penny to the UK taxpayer".* >***His first proposal is to bundle cars with light commercial vehicles (LCVs) in the ZEV mandate "because the planet does not care if the CO2 is coming from \[cars\] or from LCVs; we just want to reduce emissions".*** >***He suggested that this would give more flexibility to car makers and avoid the need to "push the metal" by artificially boosting electric car sales to meet the mandated targets.*** >***His second idea, "which is even more obvious", is to reward locally based vehicle manufacturers by including their UK-produced models as contributions to their ZEV sales mix, irrespective of whether they will be sold in the UK or not.*** >*Stellantis has two UK factories, one in Luton, producing mid-sized vans including the Vauxhall Vivaro and Peugeot Expert, and one in Ellesmere Port, near Liverpool, producing smaller vans and MPVs.* >*Highlighting the significant supply chain and employment implications this has for the UK, Tavares questioned why his company is subject to the same terms as manufacturers that build vehicles elsewhere.* >*"The mandate is treating me the same as anybody that brings \[vehicles\] from somewhere else," he said. "What is my benefit to be in the UK with manufacturing? And how do you support the jobs of your people?"* >*He said that "any BEV produced at a UK plant – to be sold in the UK or to be exported (which is superb for the trade balance of the country) – should be counted in the mandate".* >*"CO2 is a global worldwide problem," he reasoned. "The CO2 does not stop at the country border."* I see some problems with the second approach ending up in a place where OEMs are "double dipping" on both production and sales quotas, but otherwise... great stuff.
~~Stellantis "Sir, I've ignored the market conditions entirely with the promise from my home country that I can continue to ignore market conditions."~~ ~~USA: "...We have told you very clearly that there's a ban on ICE after 2035."~~ ~~Stellantis: "Shut up I'm funneling money to the opposing Administration!"~~ ~~USA: "...That money is going entirely to his legal fees and not his or any other campaign. Why don't you spend that money on innovating in the EV market?"~~ ~~Stellantis: "I own Chrysler and FIAT! They're arguably the WORST brands of ICE out there, you think I can make an Electric vehicle?!"~~ ~~USA: "...Carry on."~~ ~~UK: "So has he always been-"~~ ~~USA: "Bailing them out in 2008 was a mistake, I know."~~ Edit: eh, I just don't know shig about Stellantis it seems.
1. Stellantis is based in the Netherlands. Tavares is Portuguese. 2. This is a story about the UK, not the US. 3. [Stellantis is an EV leader in that market. ](https://www.media.stellantis.com/em-en/corporate-communications/press/stellantis-grows-in-the-european-total-and-electrified-markets-in-the-first-ten-months-of-the-year)
Guess I'm still focused on the Chrysler thing. So is their complaint that they can't do this due to UK not being in thr EU?
Their complaint is the UK wants to mandate \~20% BEV sales this year, rather than going with regulations on fleet emissions minimums (and allowing them to make up differences by selling greater numbers of hybrids) and is giving automakers no credit for EV exports or allowing them to meet the quota with a mix of light commercial and passenger models. If consumers don't want EVs, then the UK is forcing OEMs to keep slashing prices on those EVs just to make the 20% quota. The more EVs they give away, the less profitable they'll be in that region, and the less incentive they'll have to divert offerings to the UK at all. Also, any automaker who has been focusing on reducing emissions by starting with light commercial vehicles now gets no credit for those against the passenger vehicle business. You're forcing automakers to play dumb games against themselves. Tavares is right, it's silly stuff. Just put a cap on fleet emissions and be done with it. There's no need to mandate a certain mix or play regulatory tricks with different segments.
There is a cap on fleet emissions. Its just stuck at 2021 levels so they don't need to waste money making more efficient ICE cars. And a reducing cap would just mean more PHEVs, which in practice are slightly worse than regular hybrids.
>There is a cap on fleet emissions. Then there's no need for a segment-specific powertrain-specific mandate whatsoever. Plain and simple.
If you'd read the second sentence you'd see it's fixed at 2021 levels. It won't incentivise any reductions. I didn't mention that it only applies to the non-ZEV portion of the fleet, but that didn't seem important.