NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102300513.html?hpid=moreheadlines

I find this very very interesting and to my friends in Europe, I would like their take on this.

Now I know I am not up on the EU structure but personally, I think the courts made the wrong decision. This paves the way for monopolies and limited competition.

What do you all think?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102300513.html?hpid=moreheadlines

I find this very very interesting and to my friends in Europe, I would like their take on this.

Now I know I am not up on the EU structure but personally, I think the courts made the wrong decision. This paves the way for monopolies and limited competition.

What do you all think?

I disagree. As an EU citizen I welcome this move, as it means that there is more neo-liberalism in our economy. Companies can move back and forth with ease. I think in truth the German government wanted to protect VW out of nationalism more than anything else. This is a good move for the EU and can only get better

I disagree. As an EU citizen I welcome this move, as it means that there is more neo-liberalism in our economy. Companies can move back and forth with ease. I think in truth the German government wanted to protect VW out of nationalism more than anything else. This is a good move for the EU and can only get better

Ok. How?

Ok. How?

What do you mean by "How?" How what? With free open markets it means those with the power to expand will, and there are plenty of comanies with that power within the EU, so there will be competition and competition means lower prices.

What do you mean by "How?" How what? With free open markets it means those with the power to expand will, and there are plenty of comanies with that power within the EU, so there will be competition and competition means lower prices.

How will it be good for the EU? As to competitition, if a company is able to do a hostile takeover, then that leaves the door open for a very powerful company to take over all of said businesses within its perview. Ergo, it takes away from competition and thus prices go up.

How will it be good for the EU? As to competitition, if a company is able to do a hostile takeover, then that leaves the door open for a very powerful company to take over all of said businesses within its perview. Ergo, it takes away from competition and thus prices go up.
You already admitted you have no idea what the fuck the structure is in Europe and yet you keep talking out of your ass. European countries have problems with company protectionism - the government protecting certain industries from pretty much everything as a matter of nationalism and other whiny shit.

How will it be good for the EU? As to competitition, if a company is able to do a hostile takeover, then that leaves the door open for a very powerful company to take over all of said businesses within its perview. Ergo, it takes away from competition and thus prices go up.

Having a business protected from hostile take over give them an unfair advantage in the market place, surely? Besides, I'm pretty sure the EU is less than fond of monopolies.

Having a business protected from hostile take over give them an unfair advantage in the market place, surely? Besides, I'm pretty sure the EU is less than fond of monopolies.

So will there be safeguards to make sure that monopolies do not occur?

How will it be good for the EU? As to competitition, if a company is able to do a hostile takeover, then that leaves the door open for a very powerful company to take over all of said businesses within its perview. Ergo, it takes away from competition and thus prices go up.

That only works if there are not multiple powerful companies that exist who will compete, which is not true within the EU. There are many powerful competing blocks within the EU, thus this ability to free up will be better for the EU as a whole. It also means that the businesses will be made more efficent so the prices will go down further

So will there be safeguards to make sure that monopolies do not occur?

Most European companies have such safegurards against total monopolys anyway.

So will there be safeguards to make sure that monopolies do not occur?
I don’t know this for certain in all of the EU, but here in the UK I believe we have both protectionist measures for the few remaining British industries, as well as monopoly laws.

I would imagine the EU is much the same.

As an aside, it always amuses me to watch nations that extol the benefits of the free market rush to enforce protectionist measures on their own industries.

Hi, I am from Belgium and last year Volkswagen decided to close down their factory in Belgium while it is more productive than the German factory. Why? Well, because the German government is an important shareholder of Volkswagen. A similar thing happened with DHL.

In a single market, companies should not make decisions in this way: they should produce at the most efficient location and not at the location which the government prefers. Therefore, the EU Court made a good decision: government will have less impact on the market.

So will there be safeguards to make sure that monopolies do not occur?

The company I work for had to be sold off to avoid a possibly "monopoly" due to a merger of two multinationals (one of whom own us). Theres a section of the EU to deal with these things. Which is handy, because without the sell off, it would be 50/50 whether or not the resulting "synergies" led to yours truly being out on his ear after 15 years of sort-of-loyal service.

Hi, I am from Belgium and last year Volkswagen decided to close down their factory in Belgium while it is more productive than the German factory. Why? Well, because the German government is an important shareholder of Volkswagen. A similar thing happened with DHL.

In a single market, companies should not make decisions in this way: they should produce at the most efficient location and not at the location which the government prefers. Therefore, the EU Court made a good decision: government will have less impact on the market.

The company I work for had to be sold off to avoid a possibly "monopoly" due to a merger of two multinationals (one of whom own us). Theres a section of the EU to deal with these things. Which is handy, because without the sell off, it would be 50/50 whether or not the resulting "synergies" led to yours truly being out on his ear after 15 years of sort-of-loyal service.

thanks for the information. :)

With all this talk of the 'fairness' of the EU court's ruling, I wonder why the court got involved in the first place? Porsche have been kicking things around for a while with their 31% stake in VW, and will probably now move to try and leverage their share and secure a takeover. The thing with the law just declared illegal is that it merely restricts the voting rights of shareholders to not more than 20%, which goes some way to protecting the company from aggressive takeovers, venture capitalists (asset strippers) and becoming too prone to collapse. The end of VW is nigh thanks EU!

I'm curious as to why someone who admits to having no real knowledge about EU law finds himself qualified to speak to the question as to whether the judge made the right decision as a matter of law.

Judges don't make rulings based on their feelings. They make rulings based on what the law is. If you think a ruling is wrong, you have to be prepared to show why it's wrong as a matter of law. Just because you don't like the potential outcome of a ruling doesn't make it wrong as a matter of law.

It's not the judge's job to be concerned about the impact of the law. It's not the judge's job to wonder if it's a good law or a bad one. It's not the judge's job to be concerned with what will happen as a result of enforcement of the law. That's the legislature's job. A judge's job is only to rule as a matter of law, regardless of what the consequences of that ruling may be.

Seeing as how the court ruling had nothing to do with favouring monopolies or limited competition, but the exact opposite, I find that the court's ruling was actually the right one, in line with the idea that EU is a single market and protectionism is a distortion of that market.

How will it be good for the EU? As to competitition, if a company is able to do a hostile takeover, then that leaves the door open for a very powerful company to take over all of said businesses within its perview. Ergo, it takes away from competition and thus prices go up.There are separate laws that protect against the formation of monopolies. The UK was able to force Morrison's (a supermarket company) to sell part of Safeways (another supermarket), when it was acquired by Morison's due to fears that competition might be compromised. This move was not blocked by the EU courts.

In essence your complaint is like complaining that competition will completely be ruined if one cornershop in the city bought out another cornershop. There is still plenty of competition.

I completely support this decision as the law was a barrier to the free movement of capital within the EU. Which is one of the ideals at the heart of the EU.

Seeing as how the court ruling had nothing to do with favouring monopolies or limited competition, but the exact opposite, I find that the court's ruling was actually the right one, in line with the idea that EU is a single market and protectionism is a distortion of that market.

Quite so. The need to get around protectionist policies was a driving force behind the creation of the EEC (as it was then known). Laws like this were supposed to have been phased out decades ago.

Laws like this were supposed to have been phased out decades ago.
Ahh, that ruthless Brussels bureaucracy.

I'm curious as to why someone who admits to having no real knowledge about EU law finds himself qualified to speak to the question as to whether the judge made the right decision as a matter of law.

So one needs a law degree to have an opinion on something? I never said I was qualified to speak as to wether it was a good decision or not. I disagree with the decision. Pure and simple. Now please point to where I am not allowed to give my opinion on something.

Judges don't make rulings based on their feelings. They make rulings based on what the law is. If you think a ruling is wrong, you have to be prepared to show why it's wrong as a matter of law. Just because you don't like the potential outcome of a ruling doesn't make it wrong as a matter of law.

Agreed.

It's not the judge's job to be concerned about the impact of the law. It's not the judge's job to wonder if it's a good law or a bad one. It's not the judge's job to be concerned with what will happen as a result of enforcement of the law. That's the legislature's job. A judge's job is only to rule as a matter of law, regardless of what the consequences of that ruling may be.

Agreed.

So one needs a law degree to have an opinion on something? I never said I was qualified to speak as to wether it was a good decision or not. I disagree with the decision. Pure and simple. Now please point to where I am not allowed to give my opinion on something.

Agreed.

Agreed.

So you admit that a judge is supposed to render his decision not based on personal feelings, but rather his learned opinion of what the law is. You admit that you do not know what the law is. yet you still claim that, in your belief, the judge's interpretation of the law, a law you don't know, is wrong.

Because that's what this is. You're not saying his ruling will have negative consequences. You're not saying that there will be bad aspects to his ruling. You are saying his decision is wrong. You are saying that his opinion on the law is wrong. You are saying that, despite never seeing the law, never knowing the law, having no idea what the law says, he got it wrong. That your opinion of a law you have never seen is correct.

People who are willing to be intellectually honest refrain from forming opinions on topics they know nothing about. Now, you're free to have that opinion of course, however it does call into question your committment to intellectual honesty and unbiased rationality as well as the worth of your opinions on further topics.

Do you need a law degree to have an opinion about a law? No, of course not. It does help, however, to have read it at very least, something you admit, in your OP, you have not done.

It was a good post though, OD.

It was a good post though, OD.

It actually was and it is rare I say that about OD. :D

It was a good post though, OD.thanks. I appreciate that.

Despite being a bit of a Euro Skeptic, I think this is the sort of the thing the EU should be doing and not the rest of that pseudo superstate crap they keep trying to pull. Free trade and investment in science projects and leave it as that is my view. Maybe a bit of development money as well, but not much else.

It actually was and it is rare I say that about OD. :Das long as you dont say that.. exclusively when I am defending you ass. :D :D ;) :D

as long as you dont say that.. exclusively when I am defending you ass. :D :D ;) :D

BTW I agree with the posters explaining why the EU is likely doing the right think.

I actually have to agree with you there as well.

I actually have to agree with you there as well.stop that you.. you are making me uncomfortable :D

Finally.

That thing was a relic from Rheinland capitalism. And whatever the merits of that system, it's been surpassed and hanging onto it is just gonna cause pain.

And besides, Porsche knows what it's doing, VW does not. So we're gonna have capable managers replacing incompetent ones - I would consider that a thing to celebrate. The politicians and union leaders had one main interest in the company: to preserve the status quo. But VW hasn't been doing too well in recent years compared to its competition, so that's just not good enough anymore. Porsche owning a majority stake could start serious transformations, make the company more efficient and push down costs, the target being that prime example of an anti-social ultra-capitalist monster, Toyota.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,513007,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,506459,00.html

And someone asked about the EU and monopolies: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,512988,00.html