Meta is free to entirely pull out of the UK market if it wants to ignore the ruling. Any country is free to say "if you want to operate here, you must do X" but how onerous X can be before the company concerned pulls out, will depend on the market importance of that country. I doubt that Meta would obey an equivalent order by Liechtenstein.
Certainly any country can claim for itself all manner of powers, which sometimes will run up against limits of enforcement capability. The OPs question only makes sense if understood in a normative sense: even if they can, what gives them the right? or, is it a good idea?
We can assume for certain, I think, that UK regulators operate within a set of rules, and in many cases they will not have the power to interfere with an acquisition between two foreign businesses - for good reason. Regulators in other countries may not have the power to stop this particular deal in the first place.
Maybe the powers of UK regulators need to be further restricted.
I think you aren't understanding this at all. UK regulators aren't stopping anything, the merger already happened. UK regulators are simply saying that if Facebook wants to continue its operations within the borders of UK they need to sell Giphy. They were given this right by the democratically elected government of UK. Regulators in every other country have the same power, dictate conditions on which one participates in their markets.
I am merely saying that the UK electorate has the responsibility to limit the power of its regulators (unless you are of the believe that their power should be unlimited).
The interesting discussion to be had here is about what good policy is, not to say "A country can make whatever laws it likes". Well duh.
We all have an interest in a functional global system. To that end, it is beneficial of countries at times defer to the laws of other nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comity). Maybe this is such a case. Possibly we would prefer not to have other countries try to interfere with mergers happening without our own jurisdiction too often.
When the US government finds its responsibility to limit the power of its companies (unless you are of the belief that their power should be unlimited), come back to me on that.
Companies are a tool that should serve the public, if they cease to serve the public, they should be bought in line, destroyed, or (as is threatened in this case) exiled. A democracy is meant to be for the people, not for profit. Profit is just a motive to try and incentivise things that are valuable for society, when that isn't achieved, regulators should step in to fix it.
Companies that are too large have too much money, and too much power. They are inherently anti-consumer and cause harm to the very fabric of democracy. In any sane world, we would be breaking up a huge number of these large corporations into much smaller pieces.
The electorate has a responsibility to protect democracy and not let companies break the law of the land, they have no responsibility at all to companies.
The assertion that other countries should simply abandon their sovereign regulators' powers is baseless hubris. The fact that the US seems happy to allow corporate titans to reach ever new sizes does not mean anyone else is on board.
If the US wants their regulators' decisions to carry weight in another country, they can pay for the privilege via trade agreements, same as it ever was.
It seems like a perfectly reasonable power to me, i certainly would not vote against regulators being able to do so if I were a UK citizen.
As an American citizen, would you want to restrict regulators from being able to block the business of a company that merged with a CCP controlled company in China?
> As an American citizen, would you want to restrict regulators from being able to block the business of a company that merged with a CCP controlled company in China?
On what grounds would that business be blocked?
On grounds having being state controlled? I'm not sure US regulators do have that power. On some pretend grounds, to be able to wield it as a geopolitical weapon? Probably not.
> On grounds having being state controlled? I'm not sure US regulators do have that power. On some pretend grounds, to be able to wield it as a geopolitical weapon? Probably not.
overall, the Commerce Clause in article I of the US constitution grants the federal government power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which includes import / export restrictions. For example you can't really buy things from Iran or Cuba without major restrictions if at all.
if a trade embargo doesn't fall under the realm of "geopolitical weapon" I don't know what does.
The "probably not" was intended to be an answer to the question "would you support" - apologies, that wasn't clear.
My overall point is that details matter for good policy. A regulator having the power to ban a foreign merger for supposed anti-competitive reasons, but really political ones, is not the same thing as, say, a legislative body passing sanctions legislation.
In other words, just because the UK wants to ability to sanction a Chinese business does not mean the Competition and Markets Authority needs to granted the ability to interfere with Chinese mergers.
Are you for real? Do you know that Cuba's being embargoed because Cuban Americans in Florida are an important political group?
How much more geopolitical do you have to get? You've been trying to starve an entire country for more than half a century because a bunch of your citizens are pissed off they got kicked out of there 30+ years ago and your politicians need them to win vital nation-wide elections.
Yes, I know about all the Cuban abuses and all that other garbage, but that doesn't make it right because the US is allied to <<soooo>> many other human rights violating countries and it doesn't even bat an eye.
Although I agree with you, about 5 years ago the British electorate decided they wanted their own government to set all regulations within the country without having to listen to what foreign courts — specifically the courts of a friendly region with a much larger GDP than itself — had to say, so I doubt the UK electorate would act in a way you consider responsible.
Two countries having different laws says nothing inherent about the need to "limit" the power of one to enforce a specific set of laws within their borders, unless We assume the U.S. is inherently Exceptional compared to other countries, and so if another country has some weird hang-up that threatens Our Economy, it is quite concerning and really the citizens need to rise up against their leaders' tyranny and ensure U.S. Law is truly global before one of Our Corporations loses some Money.
The sovereignty of the United Kingdom over its own territory and incorporated businesses, through laws created by the British parliament which derives its power from the British people, very straightforward.
And if you think the British people are more sympathetic to Facebook than the British regulators you have another surprise coming
Whether a business is foreign or not is irrelevant as far as its operations in the UK is concerned. Do you think Chinese owned businesses in the US don't have to comply with American law on American soil?
> The sovereignty of the United Kingdom over its own territory and incorporated businesses, through laws created by the British parliament which derives its power from the British people, very straightforward.
And yet, the British parliament has a history of creating bad, unjust and undesirable laws (though I make no claim that they do so more frequently than other legislative bodies). This fact leaves you with three options:
- You can engage with OPs argument, which is suggesting that the laws enabling the regulator to do this are bad.
- You can choose not to engage with it, and read on.
- You can post trite observations that the UK can make laws.
Which part of a sovereign country’s government governing their sovereign territory is the problem here?
I imagine since jaywalking is legal in the UK (but not in the US) you have similar comments? How could there be a different law about the same topic in different countries!
How is this any different to “in country X there are Y laws”. Giphy could be from Mars and it would make no difference.
