The EU recently scotched the proposed GE/Honeywell merger, even though US authorities approved it. Where does this group get the power to veto the merger of two corporations, which although multinational in scope, are chartered in the US? Does this power extend to any deal involving a US company that does any business whatsoever in Europe? Did individual European countries have a similar power before the establishment of the EU?
1/ They want to do business in Europe
2/ Europe is a big enough market to make it difficult to do without it i international terms (soon will be bigger than US in GNP)
3/ Therefore if they do merge, they could be excluded from the European Market
The US had been playing tricks lke this in regulating trade for years, and before that Britain was quite good at it (something called the Stamp Acts I think ;)).
As China becomes an economic power approaching the US and Europe, we will once again have to bargain fairly over trade rather than accept what the US demands.
The Twentieth Century was one of US hegemony- militarily, culturally and economically; in the nineteenth and eighteenth century, Britain (England) had the whip hand; before that Spain ruled the roost. In each of the transitions there were times when power between blocks was more equal and there was more scope for fair bargaining. That’s the prediction for the first half of the next century- more equality in economics and culture; the US will remain the supreme military power, but will not be able to use it to control economics or culture. The US has reached its zenith and will need to work for its position over the next century. Best get used to it.
It is fair to say that there has been a desire in Europe to reign in multinational companies who use their mobility to avoid obligations they might have in one country such as environmenatal issues, working practices - especially health and safety(think of why Union Carbide operated the way they did, where they did it and the consequences), and monopolistic practices.
There has been a growing trend by some multinationals to demand large grants to set up business in EU states, and when they get them they operate for a few years and then pull out sometimes on spurious grounds leaving nations to clear up the social wreckage.
It may well be that in the US this conglomeration either suits US international interests or has adequate competition but outside of the US there may well not be the competition and would constitute a serious market threat.
On top of this there is also the GATT agreement as regards bananas in which the US has used its power to get its own way without regard to the impoverishment of small island producers who rely heavily on the guarunteed markets that the UK and France provide and without which may in the future cause social and political upheaval in places such as the Windward Islands etc.
It might be part of a ploy to extract some concessions in this or possibly other areas.
The US has forbidden smaller nations to sell their own products to others simply because it is not in the interests of the US, such as electronics, encryption and some materials , and no, I do not include internationally agreed sanctions in that which have UN agreements.
From a EU perspective the US operates in a way to maintain its status as the foremost trading economy and is prepared to do what it takes. so do not be surprised if other trading blocs around the world attempt to do the same.