One of the supposed benefits of Brexit was that Britain would once again become “Global Britain,” able to adjust its regulatory approaches to one more suited to an advancing world rather than a sclerotic corner like the European Union. Unfortunately for the citizens of the U.K., Brexit coincided with a growing consensus among politicians and the public that the best way to deal with any contentious political issue was to “depoliticize” it by appointing an independent body to look after the issue, free from ministerial or parliamentary control.

In practice, of course, this has led to the “independent” regulators doing exactly what public-choice theory would predict and expanding their powers. The poster child for this is the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which has decided to flex its muscles and show the world that it is one of the big three competition regulators alongside the FTC and the European Commission.

We got a taste of this when the CMA decided to block Meta’s acquisition of the tiny GIF library GIPHY on the ludicrous grounds that GIPHY might become a global player in the advertising space. Despite losing on some grounds on appeal, the CMA forced Meta to sell GIPHY, which it had to do at a loss of $260 million.

The most recent example is the attempt to block the merger between Microsoft and Activision. This decision was made all the more baffling by the subsequent clearing of the deal by the European Commission. While the currently activist FTC was doubtless pleased by the decision, it is hamstrung by the fact it will need to prove its case in court, a nicety to which the CMA is not subject.

The U.K.’s grandees are starting to wake up to what is happening. The country’s technological trade association, techUK, has issued a scathing report about the problems the industry faces. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, noted pointedly that it is “important all of our regulators understand their wider responsibilities for economic growth.” And yesterday, the Times, the U.K.’s paper of record, declared the U.K. “closed for business,” noting:

Britain and the European Union now operate separate competition regimes. Conservatives argued that Brexit would aid British companies’ competitive position in world markets by allowing this country to diverge in certain respects from Europe-wide regulation. Yet in practice the Microsoft decision, which the company is appealing against, suggests Britain is intent on becoming stricter in competition policy than the EU.

Such a stance will deter foreign enterprises from investing in Britain and thereby constrain business efficiency and economic growth. This would be a perverse consequence of a competition policy that is now subject too much to the discretion of regulators and is insufficiently sensitive to the needs of an open, trading economy that is no longer part of a large single market. The CMA’s purpose and practice should be reviewed before commercial opportunities are squandered.

These are words that Hunt and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak should take very seriously. Today, Sunak arrives in Washington, D.C., for talks that he hopes will position the U.K. alongside the U.S. as a leader in promoting the possibilities of artificial intelligence. Yet while the CMA is out of control, those hopes may be dim indeed.