Polestar to make new SUV in Europe from 2028
Polestar said the two Swedish companies, both controlled by China's Geely (GEELY.UL) and its owner Li Shufu, had signed a memorandum of understanding and the new model would launch in 2028.
"Polestar is taking the next step in diversifying its contract manufacturing footprint by expanding it to Europe," the company said.
Volvo's Kosice factory in Slovakia is scheduled to start production in 2026, with an expected annual capacity of 250,000 cars.
Polestar, which has yet to make a profit, faces tariffs of 28.8% for the cars it brings into Europe and more than 100% for any it imports into the United States.
The European Union imposed tariffs on Chinese-made EVs last year because of what it describes as unfair subsidies from the Chinese government. Beijing refutes this criticism.
Tariffs have impacted Polestar more than most European automakers because the majority of its cars are produced in China, either by Volvo Cars or Geely.
The automaker now produces some Polestar 3 SUVs in the United States at a Volvo Cars plant in South Carolina.
Earlier this year, the company stopped taking new orders from U.S. customers for the Polestar 2, which is still made in China.
The automaker will also export the Polestar 4 to the United States from a South Korean plant, where production is set to begin in the second half of the year.
Earlier this year, Polestar said it would take longer to become profitable and delayed its expansion of sales to additional countries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Minister demands overhaul of UK's leading AI institute
The technology secretary has demanded an overhaul of the UK's leading artificial intelligence institute in a wide-ranging letter that calls for a switch in focus to defence and national security, as well as leadership changes. Peter Kyle said it was clear further action was needed to ensure the government-backed Alan Turing Institute met its full potential. In a letter to ATI's chair, seen by the Guardian, Kyle said the institute should be changed to prioritise defence, national security and 'sovereign capabilities' – a reference to nation states being able to control their own AI technology. The call for new priorities implies a downgrading of ATI's focus on health and the environment, which are two of three core subjects for the institute, alongside defence and security, under its 'Turing 2.0' strategy. 'Moving forward, defence and national security projects should form a core of ATI's activities, and relationships with the UK's security, defence, and intelligence communities should be strengthened accordingly,' Kyle wrote. Making clear that the Turing 2.0 strategy did not meet government requirements, Kyle indicated that he expected leadership changes at ATI. 'To realise this vision, it is imperative that the ATI's leadership reflects the institute's reformed focus,' he wrote in a letter first reported by Politico. 'While we acknowledge the success of the current leadership in delivering reform at the institute during a difficult period, careful consideration should be given to the importance of an executive team who possesses a relevant background and sector knowledge to lead this transition.' ATI is chaired by Doug Gurr, the former head of Amazon's UK operations and interim chair of the UK's competition watchdog. The institute is going through a restructuring under its chief executive, Jean Innes, which one in five staff have said puts ATI's credibility in 'serious jeopardy'. At the end of last year, ATI employed 440 staff, but it has since launched a redundancy process. Although the institute is nominally independent, it recently secured £100m from the government in a five-year funding deal. The letter said ATI's 'longer-term funding arrangement' could be reviewed next year. The government would maintain its current level of research and development from national security and defence for the next three years, Kyle wrote, and would increase the number of defence and national security staff embedded in the institute. Dame Wendy Hall, a professor of computer science at the University of Southampton and the co-chair of a 2017 government AI review, said ATI would cease to be a national institute under the government's proposed changes. 'If the institute focuses on defence and security it ceases to be a national institute on AI,' Hall said. 'It's not broad enough. If the government wants an AI institute that does defence and security then it should just call it that.' In February, the government indicated a focus on national security with its AI strategy by renaming its AI Safety Institute, established under the premiership of Rishi Sunak, the AI Security Institute. Sign up to TechScape A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives after newsletter promotion Kyle's letter also referred to the government's 50-point AI action plan as a 'testament' to the UK's AI ambitions, The plan's targets include a 20-fold increase in the amount of AI computing power under public control by 2030, and embedding AI in the public sector. A spokesperson for ATI said the institute was focused on 'high-impact missions' that support the UK including in defence and national security. 'We share the government's vision of AI transforming the UK for the better, welcome the recognition of our critical role, and will continue to work closely with the government to support its priorities and deliver science and innovation for the public good,' said the spokesperson. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said the changes would be a 'natural next step' for ATI following the safety institute renaming. 'These proposed changes would not only ensure the Alan Turing Institute delivers real value for money – it would see it taking on a key role in safeguarding our national security,' said the spokesperson.
Times
33 minutes ago
- Times
‘My husband is much richer than me but I still wanted a prenup'
In the run-up to Elaine Foster's wedding in 2019, she had the typical to-do list of a bride-to-be: sort out the flowers, pick a caterer — and bring up the subject of a prenuptial agreement with her fiancé. Foster, 56, was determined to sign the legal contract known as a prenup before walking down the aisle. In fact, she said she wouldn't get married without one. 'It was nothing to do with protecting my wealth. My husband is substantially better off than me. I wanted to go into the marriage with us knowing that we were doing it for love, not financial gain,' said Foster, a lawyer at the Milton Keynes firm MacIntyre Law. 'I also wanted to ensure our families didn't worry that they would lose out financially later in life if we separated. I didn't want his children, or mine, from previous relationships to fear that they would lose what their parents had worked for.' Foster and her husband were ahead of their time. Prenuptial agreements are common in the United States, but were fairly rare in the UK, except among the ultra-wealthy. Now, though, lawyers say they are becoming more popular. The number of divorces has fallen dramatically over the past 20 years, but the number of prenups has risen. Edwards Family Law, which specialises in divorce, said that there had been a 50 per cent surge in the number of prenups it dealt with last year, compared with 2023. They are particularly relevant in second marriages where you are more likely to have built up wealth before you met. Without a prenup specifying otherwise, assets are often divided equally according to the 'sharing principle' unless there is good reason to do otherwise. However, a Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday (July 2) has suggested that this principle should not be applied to all assets accrued before the marriage. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Clive Standish, 72, who had transferred almost £78 million of assets to his ex-wife, Anna, 57, while they were married for tax planning purposes. • Retired banker wins fight to keep majority of £80m 'gift' to wife The assets had been accrued before his marriage and, during a lengthy divorce battle, he argued that they should not be considered as matrimonial assets, even though they had been held in her name while they were together — and the courts, eventually, agreed. Vandana Chitroda from the law firm Broadfield said: 'It is likely that following this judgment, couples entering into pre and postnuptial agreements will be advised to ensure that non-matrimonial property is concisely defined.' Charlotte Lanning from Edwards Family Law said that the growing use of prenups was probably a result of people getting married later. 'The average age at marriage is higher, so you may have already bought a house or set up a business. When everyone was getting married in their early twenties, they had not had a chance to build up any wealth yet. 'The prevalence of second marriages plays a part too. If you've had a messy divorce and lost half your assets, you want to preserve what you have left.' Prenups are not legally binding in the UK, but an important Supreme Court decision in 2010 gave them more clout. A judge ruled that courts should take such agreements into account, provided that they were entered into freely by both parties; that there was 'full and frank' disclosure of their assets; that each party had independent legal advice and the agreement was not unfair. They typically outline how you would divide your assets in the event of a divorce and are often used to protect inherited money, business ownership or inheritance for children. At the time of divorce, a court will consider the prenup in the context that it was made and the effect it would have on the couple if it were enforced. 'If the agreement only provided you with £100,000 but you had been living in a £2 million house, the court is unlikely to think that was fair,' Lanning said. 'You might have agreed not to take any spousal maintenance, but if you had since been in an accident and were unable to work, then the court would probably rule that you are entitled to some financial support.' In the end, Foster's prenup was relatively straightforward. They agreed that what each had accrued before the marriage would remain their own, and that there would be no ongoing legal ties such as maintenance payments if they were to divorce. Anything they accrued after the marriage would be shared equally if they separated. Foster said that this did not include any inheritances, which would be kept separate from their joint finances. • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts Foster said: 'We are very straight down the line and didn't want to muddy the waters. Having been divorced before, we knew that it's always a possibility. It's good to talk about these things from a place of love, rather than bitterness or unfairness. 'The way I see it is, If I go and buy a new car, I'm going to insure that car. That's not because I want to crash it or I'm planning to crash it, but because I want to be protected. It's a similar thing for me here.'
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reeves says welfare fallout ‘damaging' and declines to rule out tax hikes
Rachel Reeves refused to rule out tax rises in the autumn budget, as she admitted the fallout over the Government's welfare Bill had been 'damaging'. The Chancellor warned there would be 'costs to what happened', as she faced questions about how she would cover a shortfall left by the Downing Street climbdown on planned cuts to disability benefits. The Government saw off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday, after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) in the face of a backbench revolt. The original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected would save up to £5 billion a year, with economists warning that tax rises are now likely to plug a gap left by the concessions to rebels. The fallout threatens to cause lasting damage to morale in Labour ranks, with some MPs calling for a reset in relations between the parliamentary party and the leadership before fractures widen. Images of the Chancellor crying in the Commons on Wednesday also spooked the financial markets and led to questions about her future, though a Treasury spokesman said the tears were the result of a personal matter and Downing Street said she would remain in post. In an interview with the Guardian newspaper, Ms Reeves said she had never considered resigning, adding: 'I didn't work that hard to then quit.' She said she had gone to Prime Minister's Questions because she 'thought that was the right thing to do' but that 'in retrospect, I probably wished I hadn't gone in… (on) a tough day in the office'. Ms Reeves added: 'It's been damaging. 'I'm not going to deny that, but I think where we are now, with a review led by (disability minister) Stephen Timms, who is obviously incredibly respected and has a huge amount of experience, that's the route we're taking now.' Asked whether she would rule out tax rises now, she said to do so would be 'irresponsible' but warned 'there are costs to what happened' with the welfare Reeves is said to have already told ministers that the decision to water down the welfare package means taxes will rise in the autumn. The Times reported she had warned Cabinet on Tuesday that the increases in her first budget, which included a £24 billion hike to employer national insurance, were 'painful' but 'the low-hanging fruit'. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said the Government is still committed to welfare reform, but ministers will now wait for the conclusions of the Timms review before implementing changes to Pip.
