Image caption
The French carmaker employs people across 39 countries
Renault is cutting 15,000 jobs worldwide as part of a €2bn (£1.8bn) cost-cutting plan after seeing sales plunge because of the virus pandemic.
“This plan is essential,” said chief executive Clotilde Delbos, who announced cuts in production to focus on more profitable car models.
Some 4,600 job cuts will be in France, and the firm said on Friday that it had begun talks with unions.
On Thursday, Renault’s strategic partner Nissan unveiled huge job cuts.
Renault, 15% owned by the French state, said six sites are under review.
Nissan backs UK plant but protests erupt in Spain
France announces €8bn rescue plan for car industry
The company is slashing costs by cutting the number of subcontractors in areas such as engineering, reducing the number of components it uses, freezing expansion plans in Romania and Morocco and shrinking gearbox manufacturing worldwide.
The French firm plans to trim its global production capacity to 3.3 million vehicles in 2024 from 4 million now, focusing on areas like small vans or electric cars.
Renault, which claims more than 4% of the global car market, said the plans would affect about 10% of its 179,000-strong global workforce and cost up to €1.2bn (£1.1bn).
Falling sales
Renault is part of a three-way alliance with Nissan and Mitsubishi. On Thursday, Nissan said it would close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs in a bid to cut costs, prompting violent protests at the Spanish plant.
Both Renault and Nissan were already facing falling sales before the Covid-19 outbreak worsened trading.
Renault’s sales were down 3% last year and the number of vehicles sold in the first three months of 2020 fell by 25%, before dropping further in April. The firm is currently in talks with the French government over a €5bn emergency loan package.
The French government has also pledged €8bn in wider rescue funds aimed at shoring up the country’s car industry. In exchange, President Emmanuel Macron had said Renault should keep workers and production in the country.
Image caption
Self-employed musical director Yshani Perinpanayagam says she feels “quite unsafe”
MPs have urged Chancellor Rishi Sunak to extend support for the self-employed during the coronavirus pandemic.
The government had given self-employed workers who qualify a grant of 80% of their average profits, up to £2,500, for three months.
A similar scheme for furloughed workers has been extended to October, but the self-employed scheme ends this weekend.
A cross-party group of 114 MPs have signed a letter sent by Labour’s Siobhain McDonagh to Mr Sunak.
“This scheme is a lifeline for millions of locked-down workers right across the country,” the letter says.
“There are already significant holes in the support, but removing what is already in place would pull the safety net from under the feet of millions of self-employed workers.
“How can it be right for the furloughed scheme to continue but this scheme to not?”
While the letter congratulates the chancellor on the programme, it warns that it is too soon to end government support for the self-employed because many have seen their work dry up.
Earlier in May, the chancellor said the scheme was “under review” but, since then, he has not given any indication of its future. On Thursday, the prime minister also said extending the scheme was “under review”.
‘Difficult corner to fight’
When lockdown began, the show at the Royal Shakespeare Company that Yshani Perinpanayagam was musical director for was cancelled – and her work dried up.
She still has some composing and recital work but says she “will not be safe” if the self-employment scheme ends.
Ms Perinpanayagam said she did not know how she is going to feed herself. Her current household expenses have been covered by savings, she said.
She worries that when the rest of the UK returns to normal life but still cannot buy tickets to the theatre, the gap between self-employed artists and the rest of society will widen.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption
Chancellor Rishi Sunak has been asked to consider extending the scheme
“If people are missing mortgage payments, there is already an understanding that they need help without them having to prove anything. But the self-employed will really have to justify why we can’t pay our bills if the government is not taking a stance that we are worthy of help,” she said.
“It’s a very difficult corner to fight.”
So far, 2.3 million self-employed, including Ms Perinpanayagam. have signed up to grants totalling £6.8bn.
She worries that despite efforts from creative industries to be more inclusive of people from less wealthy backgrounds, a lack of support from the government will make it impossible for artists to survive if they do not come from a privileged background.
“A lot of people I know have been getting out and delivering pizzas, instead [of their usual work]. There is this feeling that everyone is abandoning ship because of a lack of trust in the government to help them,” says Ms Perinpanayagam.
Image copyright Sarah Vermeersch
Image caption
Ms Perinpanayagam says she does not know how she will feed herself if the scheme ends
The Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed (IPSE) has also sent a letter to the chancellor calling on him to extend the support scheme.
Its letter also suggests he look again at those who did not qualify for the program in the first place.
This included newly self-employed, those who took maternity leave in the last three years and those with limited companies.
‘I’m penalised because I took maternity leave’
IPSE estimates that 1.6 million sole traders and limited company directors have been left out of the self employment scheme, so far.
The letter is co-signed by creative unions and associations including the Creative Industries Federation, Bectu and Equity.
US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at removing some of the legal protections given to social media platforms.
It gives regulators the power to pursue legal actions against firms such as Facebook and Twitter for the way they police content on their platforms.
President Trump accused social media platforms of having “unchecked power” while signing the order.
The order is expected to face legal challenges.
Legal experts says the US Congress or the court system must be involved to change the current legal understanding of protections for these platforms.
Mr Trump has regularly accused social media platforms of stifling or censoring conservative voices.
On Wednesday, Mr Trump accused Twitter of election interference, after it added fact-check links to two of his tweets.
On Thursday, Twitter added “get the facts about Covid-19” tags to two tweets from a Chinese government spokesman who claimed the coronavirus had originated in the US.
What does the executive order say?
The order sets out to clarify the Communications Decency Act, a US law that offers online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube legal protection in certain situations.
Under Section 230 of the law, social networks are not generally held responsible for content posted by their users, but can engage in “good-Samaritan blocking”, such as removing content that is obscene, harassing or violent.
The executive order points out that this legal immunity does not apply if a social network edits content posted by its users, and calls for legislation from Congress to “remove or change” section 230. Mr Trump said Attorney General William Barr will “immediately” begin crafting a law for Congress to later vote on.
It also says “deceptive” blocking of posts, including removing a post for reasons other than those described in a website’s terms of service, should not be offered immunity.
Republican senator Marco Rubio is among those arguing that the platforms take on the role of a “publisher” when they add fact-check labels to specific posts.
“The law still protects social media companies like Twitter because they are considered forums not publishers,” Mr Rubio said.
“But if they have now decided to exercise an editorial role like a publisher, then they should no longer be shielded from liability and treated as publishers under the law.”
The executive order also calls for:
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to spell out what type of content blocking will be considered deceptive, pretextual or inconsistent with a service provider’s terms and conditions
a review of government advertising on social-media sites and whether those platforms impose viewpoint-based restrictions
the re-establishment of the White House “tech bias reporting tool” that lets citizens report unfair treatment by social networks
What effect will the order have?
Donald Trump promised “big action” in response to Twitter’s decision to append a fact-check message to two of his posts. While his announcement of an executive order was heavy on rhetoric – accusing social media companies of being monopolies that threaten free speech – it will be a long process before the talk turns into real action, big or otherwise.
Independent government agencies will have to review federal law, promulgate new regulations, vote on them and then – in all likelihood – defend them in court. By the time it’s all over, the November presidential election could have come and gone.
That explains why Trump is also pushing for new congressional legislation – a more straightforward way of changing US policy toward social media companies.
The real purpose of the president’s order, however, may be symbolic. At the very least, the move will cause Twitter to think twice about attempting to moderate or fact-check his posts on their service.
The president relies on Twitter to get his message out without filtering from the mainstream media. If Twitter itself start blunting one of his favourite communication tools, he is sending a message that he will push back – and make things, at a minimum, uncomfortable for the company.
How have the social networks responded?
Twitter called the order “a reactionary and politicized approach to a landmark law,” adding that Section 230 “protects American innovation and freedom of expression, and it’s underpinned by democratic values”.
Google, which owns YouTube, said changing Section 230 would “hurt America’s economy and its global leadership on internet freedom.”
“We have clear content policies and we enforce them without regard to political viewpoint. Our platforms have empowered a wide range of people and organizations from across the political spectrum, giving them a voice and new ways to reach their audiences,” the firm said in a statement to the BBC.
In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, said censoring a social media platform would not be the “right reflex” for a government concerned about censorship.
“I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online,” said Mr Zuckerberg.
“I think in general private companies probably shouldn’t be – especially these platform companies – shouldn’t be in the position of doing that.”
One conservative think tank warned the executive order could have unintended consequences.
“In the long run, this conservative campaign against social media companies could have a devastating effect on the freedom of speech,” said Matthew Feeney of the Cato Institute.
And changing the Communications Decency Act to “impose political neutrality on social media companies” could see the platforms filled with “legal content they’d otherwise like to remove” such as pornography, violent imagery and racism.
“Or they would screen content to a degree that would kill the free flow of information on social media that we’re used to today,” he said.
Mr Feeney said the draft of the executive order was a “mess” but could prove politically popular in the run-up to a presidential election.
What sparked the latest row?
The long-running dispute between Mr Trump and social media companies flared up again on Tuesday, when two of his posts were given a fact-check label by Twitter for the first time.
He had tweeted, without providing evidence: “There is no way (zero) that mail-in ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent.”
Twitter added a warning label to the post and linked to a page describing the claims as “unsubstantiated”.
Then on Wednesday, Mr Trump threatened to “strongly regulate” social-media platforms.
He tweeted to his more than 80 million followers that Republicans felt the platforms “totally silence conservatives”, and that he would not allow this to happen.
In an earlier tweet, he said Twitter was “completely stifling free speech”.
Twitter’s chief executive, Jack Dorsey, responded to criticism of the platform’s fact-checking policies in a series of posts, saying: “We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally.”
Skip Twitter post by @jack
Fact check: there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that’s me. Please leave our employees out of this. We’ll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make.
— jack (@jack) May 28, 2020
End of Twitter post by @jack
Mr Trump wrote a similar post about mail-in ballots on Facebook on Tuesday, and no such warnings were applied.
Twitter has tightened its policies in recent years, as it faced criticism that its hands-off approach allowed fake accounts and misinformation to thrive.
Struggling French carmaker Renault is said to be planning 15,000 job cuts around the world as it tries to contain losses amid the pandemic.
The move comes as the virus deepens the challenges facing the firm, which saw its first annual loss in a decade last year.
The company, which has pledged to cut costs by €2bn (£1.8bn), is expected to discuss the plan on Friday.
Almost one third of the reductions are expected to occur in France.
Speaking on French television, a French labour leader briefed on the plans said many of the cuts in France would come through voluntary layoffs or retirement.
Renault, which claims more than 4% of the global market, employs more than 179,000 people in 39 countries.
Even before the pandemic, the firm was in trouble, with sales down 3% last year. It said last month the number of vehicles sold dropped by 25% in the first three months of the year and plunged even more dramatically in April.
The firm is currently in talks with the French government, which holds a 15% stake in the company, over a €5bn emergency loan package.
The French government has also pledged €8bn in wider rescue funds aimed at shoring up the country’s car industry.
In exchange President Emmanuel Macron has said the firm should keep workers and production in the country.
Top members of the US administration have warned that Hong Kong no longer merits a special status when it comes trade, and the territory could be treated the same way as mainland China.
Until now, the US has given Hong Kong favourable trading terms, dating back to the territory’s time as a British colony, but US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Congress that Hong Kong no longer enjoys a high degree of autonomy from China
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s top economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Beijing “will be held accountable” for a new security law set to be imposed on Hong Kong.
The National Economic Council Director told CNBC, “If need be, Hong Kong now may have to be treated the same way as China is treated, and that has implications for tariffs”.
So what will it mean if that special status is revoked?
Hong Kong is well-known as one of the world’s most important financial centres. With a free economy and a competitive tax regime, it’s attracted many multinational companies to its shores.
It’s also an important hub for trade. But all of that could be in jeopardy, if the US changes the way it deals with Hong Kong.
So what is the US threatening?
At the moment, Hong Kong enjoys special trade relations with the US. It operates as a separate customs territory to mainland China. It also has a free port, meaning no tariffs are charged on the import or export of goods.
Those arrangements have helped Hong Kong become a centre for global trade. But now the US is threatening to treat Hong Kong the same as mainland China. That would mean its goods would be subject to additional tariffs, including those extra charges that were introduced as part of the US-China trade war, although some of those have recently been rolled back.
Image copyright Getty Images
“Hong Kong has had a special trading relationship with different types of tariffs and regulations that have allowed it to trade in a freer way, particularly in relation to capital markets,” said Dr Rebecca Harding, independent trade expert and CEO of Coriolis Technologies.
“The US has treated it as an ally, if you like. But it’s now saying we are going to treat you in a similar way to how we treat China,” she said.
Where does that leave Hong Kong?
Hong Kong is one of the world’s top trading territories. In 2018 it was ranked with the 7th highest volume of trade with a total value of nearly $1.2tn.
But much of that trade is made up of goods that pass into, or come out of, mainland China.
In 2018, 8% of mainland China’s exports to the US and 6% of mainland China’s imports from the US, passed through Hong Kong.
This role as a gateway between the Chinese market and the rest of the world has put Hong Kong in a unique position, but different trade arrangements could change that.
Image copyright Getty Images
“If there’s a new trade regime in place, that changes the calculation for companies,” said Dr Tim Summers, a Senior Fellow at Chatham House, based in Hong Kong.
Companies could choose to move their goods directly through ports in mainland China instead, and higher tariffs there will mean higher price tags.
“The people who are going to get hurt are businesses and consumers,” Dr Summers said.
Will China be worried?
Not so much as it might have been at the time of the Hong Kong handover. Back in 1997, Hong Kong played a much more significant role in China’s economy, accounting for around 18% of China’s GDP.
“But over the last 25 years China has grown massively,” said Dr Summers. Hong Kong now contributes just 2-3% of China’s GDP.
“Put that in context of the ocean of trade coming out of China, it’s not so significant any more. So if President Trump were to act on trade, Hong Kong would suffer, but it’s not a gamechanger for China,” he said.
Image copyright Getty Images
Beijing will however want to maintain Hong Kong’s status as a global financial centre. Mainland Chinese companies are among those which choose to list on Hong Kong’s Stock Exchange because of its access to global capital. Mainland Chinese companies also benefit from Hong Kong’s large financial services sector.
“Shanghai and Shenzhen already have a vibrant financial services sector serving mainlanders,” says David Webb, a former investment banker who’s lived in Hong Kong since 1991. But so long as Beijing has capital controls on the movement of money in and out of China for investment, “then it can’t compete with Hong Kong on international capital,” he said.
How could this affect the US?
Each year, billions of dollars worth of goods and services are traded between Hong Kong and the US. In 2018, the total value of that trade was almost $67bn according to the US Trade Representative, including $17bn worth of imports that Americans bought from Hong Kong.
If Hong Kong faces the same trading terms as mainland China, US consumers will pay more for those goods.
“American businesses both in the US itself and in Hong Kong are lobbying hard to try and get any action diluted,” said Rachel Cartland, director of Cartland Consulting and a former Hong Kong civil servant.
The US Chamber of Commerce has warned that far-reaching changes to Hong Kong’s status would have “serious implications” for Hong Kong and US businesses.
That puts Washington in a tricky position, according Dr Summers.
He says ostensibly, Secretary Pompeo’s threat appears to be about recent developments in Hong Kong, and Beijing’s new security law for the territory. But he said, what it’s really about is US-China relations.
“If I were going to be really cynical, I would say this has provided an opportunity for some people in Washington to take measures they wanted to take anyway against China, in the context of a wider US-China rivalry,” he said.
“That may well drive the thinking of what Trump does next more than any particular concern about the political autonomy of Hong Kong,” he said.
Urgent government action is needed to safeguard jobs in the aviation industry and ensure its survival, a cross-party group of MPs has said.
The newly formed Future of Aviation Group issued the call in a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps.
The group of 40 MPs complained of “the lack of progress” in providing wider support for the industry.
And they asked how often the government would review its planned quarantine for new arrivals.
From 8 June, people entering the UK from abroad will be told to isolate for 14 days or face a £1,000 fine.
The quarantine plan has already attracted fierce criticism from the travel industry, with more than 70 travel bosses denouncing it in a separate letter to Home Secretary Priti Patel.
“The very last thing the travel industry needs is a mandatory quarantine imposed on all arriving passengers which will deter foreign visitors from coming here, deter UK visitors from travelling abroad, and most likely cause other countries to impose reciprocal quarantine requirements on British visitors,” the travel firms’ letter says.
Airlines have been announcing job losses and restructuring programmes as they fight to stay in business. The latest is EasyJet, which said on Thursday that it planned to cut up to 30% of its workforce – about 4,500 jobs.
EasyJet plans up to 4,500 job cuts
What are the new quarantine rules for passengers?
“The wider aviation family makes a significant economic and social contribution to the UK and will be central to our long-term economic recovery,” the MPs wrote to Mr Shapps.
“We are therefore concerned at the lack of progress being made in providing wider support for the industry and in the development of a long-term roadmap that will enable the sector to recover as quickly as possible and play its vital role in our national overall economic recovery.”
The MPs called on the government to prioritise “air bridges” to restart safe travel to and from low-risk countries.
“We need urgent action now to safeguard jobs,” they added. “The consequences of inaction in this vital area are simply unthinkable.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “As the world begins to emerge from what we hope is the worst of the coronavirus pandemic, we must look to the future and protect the British public by reducing the risk of cases crossing our border.
“We continue to support businesses in the tourism sector through one of the most generous economic packages provided anywhere in the world. However, it is right that we introduce these new measures now to keep the transmission rate down and prevent a devastating second wave.”
Do the quarantine rules apply to everybody?
There are a number of groups who are exempt, including:
Road haulage and freight workers
Medical officials who are travelling to help fight coronavirus
Anyone arriving from the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands, or the Isle of Man
Seasonal agricultural workers if they self-isolate on the property where they are working
Initially, it was suggested the rules would also not apply to travellers from France. However, the government later insisted the quarantine measures will also apply to them.
The travel firms say the sector contributed £200bn to the UK economy last year, around 9% of gross domestic product.
But they say the government has been “woefully slow to react and has procrastinated to the point of absurdity” when considering support schemes for the industry during the crisis.
The letter says the government “must not exceed its mandate”.
“The people of this country do not wish to be prevented from travelling.”
“Quite simply, it is time to switch the emphasis from protection to economic recovery before it is too late.”
EasyJet has said it will cut up to 30% of its workforce – about 4,500 jobs – as it struggles with a collapse in air travel caused by the virus pandemic.
The airline did not say exactly how many jobs would go, but it employed 15,000 people at the start of 2020.
Pilots’ union Balpa reacted angrily, describing the move as an “ill-considered knee-jerk reaction”.
EasyJet, which has big operations at Gatwick and Luton airports, confirmed it would restart flights on 15 June.
However, it said that levels of market demand seen in 2019 were not likely to be reached again until 2023.
It added that in the coming days, it would launch an employee consultation process on the planned job cuts.
It grounded its entire fleet in March as global travel came to a near-halt.
‘Difficult decisions’
“To effect the restructure of our business, EasyJet will shortly launch an employee consultation process on proposals to reduce staff numbers by up to 30%, reflecting the reduced fleet, the optimisation of our network and bases, improved productivity as well as the promotion of more efficient ways of working,” the firm said.
EasyJet chief executive Johan Lundgren said: “We realise that these are very difficult times and we are having to consider very difficult decisions which will impact our people, but we want to protect as many jobs as we can for the long-term.
He said the airline was planning to reduce the size of its fleet and would continue to cut costs.
“We want to ensure that we emerge from the pandemic an even more competitive business than before, so that easyJet can thrive in the future.”
What are the new quarantine rules?
When will I be able to go on holiday?
Other airlines have already announced job cuts and restructuring programmes as they fight to stay in business. These include:
British Airways, which is set to cut up to 12,000 jobs from its 42,000-strong workforce
Ryanair, which is set to cut 3,000 jobs – 15% of its workforce – with boss Michael O’Leary saying the move is “the minimum that we need just to survive the next 12 months”
Virgin Atlantic, which has announced it is to cut more than 3,000 jobs in the UK out of a total of 10,000 and end its operation at Gatwick airport.
The travel industry’s hopes of reopening for business as global lockdowns ease have been dealt a blow by the UK government’s plan to introduce a 14-day quarantine for all arrivals.
From 8 June, people entering the UK from abroad, including returning holidaymakers, will be told to isolate for 14 days or face a £1,000 fine.
In a letter to the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, hotels and holiday firms said the policy would reduce visitor numbers and could make it harder for Britons to travel abroad.
Travel firms say quarantine plan must be scrapped
Meanwhile, tour operator Tui has said all its holidays for UK customers will now be suspended until at least the end of June. It had previously cancelled all trips up to 11 June.
It has also suspended its Marella Cruises sailings until 30 July.
Rival tour operator Jet2holidays has also suspended its holidays until 30 June.
The UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office continues to advise against all but essential international travel.
‘Kick in the teeth’
“EasyJet staff will be shocked at the scale of this announcement and only two days ago, staff got a ‘good news’ message from their boss with no mention of job losses, so this is a real kick in the teeth,” said Brian Strutton of Balpa.
“Those staff have taken pay cuts to keep the airline afloat and this is the treatment they get in return. EasyJet has not discussed its plans with Balpa, so we will wait and see what impact there will be in the UK,” he added.
“EasyJet’s own projections, though on the pessimistic side, point to recovery by 2023, so this is a temporary problem that doesn’t need this ill-considered knee-jerk reaction.”
Lindsey Olliver, the EasyJet officer for the Unite union, said the airline had made “an unnecessarily hasty decision”.
She added: “The workforce is currently furloughed under the government’s job retention scheme and the airline will continue to receive support until at least October.
“It has also received a government-backed loan of £600m and has committed to expenditure on new aircraft.”
She said Unite did not know where the job losses were planned and would be seeking “clarification” from the company.
EasyJet reaffirmed that it would be introducing security measures to protect against the spread of coronavirus when it resumes flights.
These include requiring passengers and crew to wear masks and not offering on-board meals.
The airline said it would release half-year results, covering the six months to the end of March, on 30 June.
Nissan’s UK factory in Sunderland will stay open as the Japanese carmaker carries out a global restructuring amid the coronavirus pandemic.
It will close its factory in Barcelona with the loss of about 2,800 jobs after the firm plunged to a $6.2bn (£5bn) net loss in the last financial year.
Nissan is cutting production and car models after sales fell before and during the Covid-19 outbreak.
The company’s net loss is its first for more than 10 years.
Restructuring
Nissan is part of a three-way alliance with Renault and Mitsubishi, which are restructuring global operations to enable them to work more closely and cut costs.
Nissan said on Thursday it would focus on several “key markets”, including Japan, North America and China.
In a press briefing, its boss said that it will “sustain” its presence in Europe but will leave more room for alliance partners there, such as Renault. There has been speculation that Renault could switch some production to the Sunderland factory.
Nissan chief executive Makoto Uchida told the press briefing the company would maintain production at its Sunderland plant.
It will begin building cars there again in June, after production was paused due to coronavirus-related lockdown measures.
Mr Uchida described the closure of the Barcelona factory as “a very difficult decision”.
‘Sigh of relief’ for Sunderland workers
This is good news. For today, Nissan workers can breathe a sigh of relief that Sunderland has been recognised as an important production facility for the future.
However, lots of questions remain. Nissan has identified Japan, North America and China as “core” markets – not Europe. In Europe, Nissan’s alliance partner Renault will assume a greater role and influence in Europe at a time when the global car market will have to make very aggressive cost reductions.
The question may arise in the future – who is really in charge in Europe? If it’s Renault, what does that mean for future investment in a post-Brexit UK? Nissan alone said it had capacity to make seven million cars when it only needs capacity for five million.
Only plants that can demonstrate an ability to be ruthless about cost will continue to attract investment. As Professor David Bailey tweeted this morning: “Once again, the workforce will have to pull out all the stops to work flexibly to get costs down”.
So, some belt tightening ahead, but workers in Sunderland will be thankful they are not in the same position as their counterparts in Spain and Indonesia, where plants closed down.
Drop in sales
On Thursday, Nissan also outlined plans to reduce the range of models of cars and trucks available in order to cut costs.
It said it would reduce the number of models from 69 to about 55 over the next few years, focusing instead on electric vehicles and sports cars.
Nissan said that worldwide sales of its vehicles between January and April had dropped by 31.1% in comparison with the same period last year.
But even before the Covid-19 outbreak, Nissan’s sales and profits had been falling, forcing it to pull back from the ambitious expansion plan devised by now-ousted leader Carlos Ghosn.
Image copyright Reuters
Image caption
Ex-Nissan boss Carlos Ghosn fled from Japan to Lebanon in December
The carmaker’s operating profit had tumbled for four years in a row as it chased market share, particularly in America, leading led to overcapacity at its car plants and steep discounts.
The pandemic added yet more pressure on the company to step up its cost-cutting efforts. On Thursday the company said it was too difficult to forecast its performance in the next year due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Mr Uchida said that the firm’s key focus during the pandemic was now to “pursue steady growth”, instead of the massive sales expansion it pursued in the past.
For new firms looking to expand, outside investment is vital.
Little Tummy, a UK firm which makes organic baby foods, was planning an export drive this year. However, its investors have postponed handing it the cash until the Covid-19 crisis has passed.
Little Tummy’s co-founder Nadine Hellmann says she doesn’t know when investors’ confidence will return.
Image caption
Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou has been living in Canada under house arrest
A Canadian court has ruled that the case of senior Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, who is fighting extradition to the United States, can go forward.
A judge found that the case meets the threshold of double criminality – meaning the charges would be crimes in both the US and Canada.
The US wants Ms Meng to stand trial on charges linked to the alleged violation of US sanctions against Iran.
Her case has created a rift between China and Canada.
Her lead defence lawyer, Richard Peck, has argued in court that Canada is effectively being asked “to enforce US sanctions”.
But Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes ruled Wednesday in British Columbia’s Supreme Court in Vancouver that the crimes she is charged with in the US would also have been crimes in Canada in 2018.
The approach taken by Ms Meng’s lawyers, if upheld, “would seriously limit Canada’s ability to fulfil its international obligations in the extradition context for fraud and other economic crimes,” she added.
The US has charged Ms Meng with fraud over a Huawei-owned company’s alleged dealings with Iran.
Relations between the US and China have already been strained by disputes over trade and the future of Hong Kong.
Washington has been lobbying its allies – including the UK – to not use Huawei’s 5G technology services in critical communications infrastructure, alleging it could be a security threat.
Following Wednesday’s ruling, Reid Weingarten, a US lawyer for Ms Meng, said his client should “not be a pawn or a hostage” in the China-US relationship.
“Today’s ruling in Canada is only the opening salvo in a very long process … we are confident that ultimately justice will be done,” he added.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for Huawei, Benjamin Howes, said the company was “disappointed” in the ruling.
“We have repeatedly expressed confidence in Ms Meng’s innocence. Huawei continues to stand with Ms Meng in her pursuit for justice and freedom.”
China has repeatedly called for Ms Meng to be released, and on Tuesday Beijing warned the case would cause “continuous harm to China-Canada relations”.
Following the ruling, a Chinese embassy spokesperson in Canada told CBC news: “The purpose of the United States is to bring down Huawei and other Chinese high-tech companies, and Canada has been acting in the process as an accomplice of the United States. The whole case is entirely a grave political incident.”
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption
The US says it believes Huawei is a national security threat, which the company denies
China is believed to have arrested two Canadians – Michael Kovrig, a former diplomat, and Michael Spavor, a businessman – in retaliation for Ms Meng’s arrest. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau calls their continued detention “arbitrary”.
“Canada has an independent judicial system that functions without interference or override by politicians,” Mr Trudeau said last week.
“China doesn’t work quite the same way and doesn’t seem to understand that.”
Canadians held for a year by China are ‘resilient’
On Wednesday, Mr Kovrig’s former employer called on China to release him.
“Ruling was not about our colleague Michael Kovrig & ought have no bearing on his case,” tweeted Robert Malley, president and CEO of International Crisis Group.
“He shouldn’t be held as a pawn.”
‘Case gives US leverage in 5G row’
Analysis by Zoe Thomas, Technology Reporter, BBC News
This case was just the first step in Ms Meng’s fight against US extradition. Still, it is a blow to Huawei and the Chinese government. A ruling in Ms Meng’s favour would have helped China portray the US as a bully, and given Huawei a leg up as it pushes for a larger role in global 5G networks.
The US has not shied away from throwing its weight around to prevent the Chinese telecoms giant from being involved in other countries’ creations of the high-speed internet networks.
Even though this case isn’t directly about 5G, it does give the US leverage to paint Huawei’s chief financial officer as a bad actor.
It’s not all bad news for Ms Meng or Huawei. Her case now moves to another round of hearings – this time about whether the Canadian police who arrested her violated her rights.
If she is successful in that case she could be sent home, perhaps a little later than hoped but with just as much freedom.
What is the background?
Ms Meng is the chief financial officer of Huawei and the daughter of its founder Ren Zhengfei.
What would happen if the UK ditched Huawei?
Huawei calls US rules ‘arbitrary and pernicious’
She has been out on bail but under house arrest in Vancouver, where she owns property, since shortly after she was detained in December 2018.
Not long after her arrest, China detained two Canadian nationals – Mr Kovrig and Mr Spavor – and has accused the pair of espionage.
The move by Beijing is widely viewed as “hostage diplomacy” – a tactic to put pressure on Canada to release the Huawei executive.
“The Government of Canada’s top priority is and remains securing the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who have been arbitrarily detained for over 500 days. We will continue to advocate for their immediate release,” said Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne after Wednesday’s ruling.
Ms Meng’s arrest also led to a trade row between Canada and China.
Image copyright AFP
Image caption
Michael Spavor (L) and Michael Kovrig have been held since December 2018
What is next in the case?
A second hearing, focusing on allegations of abuse of process and whether Canadian officials followed the law while arresting Ms Meng, is currently scheduled for next month.
Even if a Canadian court eventually recommends extradition, it is the federal justice minister who makes the ultimate decision.
It is highly likely the overall process could be lengthy. Ms Meng has avenues to appeal throughout the process and some extradition cases have dragged on for years.
