It is funny how much we want corporations to not meedle with government and agencies independence, until it is of someone interest that it is the opposite =p

You want legal contracts to be 100% scrutinized at every time because they damage the company you like? That is where you want to invest taxes?

Isn't it like it is with everything? We don't want to meddle with anything until it is in our interest to do so.

You may talk about yourself. Myself I'm advocate to minimum government and intervention. And if the law/procedure in one country is independence then you shall keep and respect that instead of when it is for something you want them decide to have intervention. That is the type of breach that government love to use to increase its power.

No, I was talking generally, do you often see someone meddle with things without interest? So a more clear answer to your prior post would be "Of course because this is how it works with literally every subject".

And if the law/procedure in one country is independence then you shall keep and respect that instead of when it is for something you want them decide to have intervention.

That's literally the opposite of how a democracy works though. Some countries' laws and practices allowed/still allow for pretty shady things and the only way forward is if/when people start questioning/disrespecting those shady laws and procedures in the first place.

Advocating for one way relationship with the government is counter-productive, if 1 government body's sole purpose is to meddle with companies then it is to be expected that companies can voice their concern, and grievances, and be heard by the government.

That is the type of breach that government love to use to increase its power.

What leads countries to increase power is unaccountability or the thought they could get away with X. There's no scenario where challenging the government using legal means is wrong or should be avoided for the sake of the government.

Nope, even for stuff I care about I rather the government doesn't touch it at all.

Are we really going the route that UK isn't a democracy so MS should go to their government and demand intervention on CMA to reestablish democracy?

Please tell me how the legal route on an independent body is external influence that detriments its independence.

Nope, even for stuff I care about I rather the government doesn't touch it at all.

I believe we are simply not talking about the same thing here, as I don't know how this apply to my response

Are we really going the route that UK isn't a democracy so MS should go to their government and demand intervention on CMA to reestablish democracy?

That's not what I said, Uk is a democracy and a working democracy accept the fact that being challenged is a thing, that's the principle behind many right such as freedom of expression and access to justice.

Please tell me how the legal route on an independent body is external influence that detriments its independence.

independence <> unaccountability, the independent entity did not make itself up, it was created with a mandate, if they overreached or are suspected to have overreached on such mandate it is expected that they get challenged. Otherwise, you imply that such a body is perfect and cannot be faulted in any way.