5 ms·

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

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.

miracle2k 5y ago
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.
- tsujp 5y ago
  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.
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  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.
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    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 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.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      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?
      - miracle2k 5y ago
        > 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 some narrow national security reasons? Maybe.
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > On what grounds would that business be blocked? Any grounds pertinent to American interests, frankly.
        whimsicalism 5y ago
        Have US regulators not blocked multiple such businesses already?
- zo1 5y ago
  You can basically ask that same question of everything that government does.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  >what gives them the right? 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?
  - miracle2k 5y ago
    > 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.

miracle2k 5y ago

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.

tsujp 5y ago
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.
Kbelicius 5y ago
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.
- miracle2k 5y ago
  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 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.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    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?
    - miracle2k 5y ago
      > 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 some narrow national security reasons? Maybe.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > On what grounds would that business be blocked? Any grounds pertinent to American interests, frankly.
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        Have US regulators not blocked multiple such businesses already?
zo1 5y ago
You can basically ask that same question of everything that government does.
Barrin92 5y ago
>what gives them the right? 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?
- miracle2k 5y ago
  > 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.