UK Response...

[SparkyDog]

Could some of you brits provide some context for the news coverage of Frists' attachment? Looking online, there seems to be a much greater importance attached to these recent developments than here in the U.S., obviously because many of the publically traded companies are listed on the london exchange. Most seem to view it pretty negatively, too.

I believe elections are coming soon in the U.K., is there a place where we could get a rundown of the candidates and how the political landscape will be changing in the UK in the forseeable future? The general sentiment is that the next PM won't be nearly as cozy to the US administration as Blair. How big of an issue is this going to be over there, and what are some of the possible reactions from the UK gov't?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Could some of you brits provide some context for the news coverage of Frists' attachment? Looking online, there seems to be a much greater importance attached to these recent developments than here in the U.S., obviously because many of the publically traded companies are listed on the london exchange. Most seem to view it pretty negatively, too.

I believe elections are coming soon in the U.K., is there a place where we could get a rundown of the candidates and how the political landscape will be changing in the UK in the forseeable future? The general sentiment is that the next PM won't be nearly as cozy to the US administration as Blair. How big of an issue is this going to be over there, and what are some of the possible reactions from the UK gov't?

[/ QUOTE ]
Very quiet here so far. Times article has been posted about.

No general election coming up for years, just regional elections, no way this will be an issue.

chez

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
How big of an issue is this going to be over there, and what are some of the possible reactions from the UK gov't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Also what is the possibility of a WTO action executed by the UK on behalf of Party Poker?

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[SparkyDog]

So aside from any possible WTO rulings (which we know how much weight the US gives those), this will be a non issue as far the UK govt is concerned?

I was hoping there would be a little more indignation from the UK financial community or something. It seems to me that this would be akin to the UK banning american cars, as online gambling is a legal and regulated industry over there. I could only imagine the kind of uproar that everyday american citizens would be raising.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So aside from any possible WTO rulings (which we know how much weight the US gives those), this will be a non issue as far the UK govt is concerned?

I was hoping there would be a little more indignation from the UK financial community or something. It seems to me that this would be akin to the UK banning american cars, as online gambling is a legal and regulated industry over there. I could only imagine the kind of uproar that everyday american citizens would be raising.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm far from expert on this but I think a WTO challenge would come from the EU and if the EU gets serious about it then the USA will take it seriously. Hard to know what the EU will do but gambling is a sensitive issue which won't help.

There will be no public uproar about this in the UK - that's up to you lot in the USA.

chez

[Longy]

We do have a pro gambling government here in the uk which very much sees online gaming as something to be regulated and taxed. That is unlikely to change when Blair steps down and the next general election is not until 2009 at the earliest.

This is also a bit of a non issue politically in the uk for a number of reasons.

1. No one cares apart from the very small number of online pros who can see their prey leaving. Shareholders in the online gaming companies and people who are going to lose their jobs. This is such a small minority it is insignificant.

2. Politics in the uk is not run on such a religious moralistic basis in the uk. Health, education, crime, taxes etc are the big issues not whether gambling or abortion is right or wrong.

3. We are still going to be able to freely play poker over here, so your average poker player is going to shrug his shoulders and get a beer out and fire up party or stars etc.

So is the uk govt, financial instituitions or public going to help you, unfortunately not.

Though we may say told you so if you insist on electing governments that have extemely right wing relegious tendicies, which infringe on your freedoms.

[Bilgefisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Could some of you brits provide some context for the news coverage of Frists' attachment? Looking online, there seems to be a much greater importance attached to these recent developments than here in the U.S., obviously because many of the publically traded companies are listed on the london exchange. Most seem to view it pretty negatively, too.

I believe elections are coming soon in the U.K., is there a place where we could get a rundown of the candidates and how the political landscape will be changing in the UK in the forseeable future? The general sentiment is that the next PM won't be nearly as cozy to the US administration as Blair. How big of an issue is this going to be over there, and what are some of the possible reactions from the UK gov't?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen jack squat in the media here in Colorado about this. Everything Ive found Ive had to really search for...your average joe wouldn't know or care to look for it.

[trdi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So aside from any possible WTO rulings (which we know how much weight the US gives those), this will be a non issue as far the UK govt is concerned?

I was hoping there would be a little more indignation from the UK financial community or something. It seems to me that this would be akin to the UK banning american cars, as online gambling is a legal and regulated industry over there. I could only imagine the kind of uproar that everyday american citizens would be raising.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm far from expert on this but I think a WTO challenge would come from the EU and if the EU gets serious about it then the USA will take it seriously. Hard to know what the EU will do but gambling is a sensitive issue which won't help.

There will be no public uproar about this in the UK - that's up to you lot in the USA.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
That's absolutely true, EU is acting like as one in WTO and have been very successful in last years in trials against USA. If all poker sites would be stationed in EU, USA would be forced to stop antigambling activities in 2004 when the WTO found them illegal. Antigua can't hurt american economy while EU can.
European countries COULD act for themselves if they wanted to, but they choose to act as EU, because this gives them the necessary strength to enforce every WTO ruling that is positive for them. Antigua can enforce s*it.

[Osprey]

Does anyone really think the EU would be willing to go to the mattresses for Party Poker and internet gambling? I like poker, but that does not change the fact that it is gambling, is regarded as a shady vice, is lumped in with all the casino games, and the American government does not want us participating in it. Then the big bad EU is going to use its political capital to force our government to open us up to gambling on behalf of Party Poker? That sounds laughable to me, actually.

[breaktwister]

No Osprey - the problem is that US is allowing gambling within its own borders. Its a matter of international trade. And that the EU takes very seriously (I hope!).

[Osprey]

Not all places in the US allow gambling- it is dependant on the jursidiction and the state. Some states have no casinos at all, some are only on Indian land- I believe there are even still some states without a lottery (? Hawaii? maybe)

[peritonlogon]

Yeah, this is about the clearest case of protectionism I've seen. My one thought is that the law does not prohibit online poker, just the funding of it. I don't know what this technicality could have on WTO rullings but it may or may not render the cause invalid.

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
Not all places in the US allow gambling- it is dependant on the jursidiction and the state. Some states have no casinos at all, some are only on Indian land- I believe there are even still some states without a lottery (? Hawaii? maybe)

[/ QUOTE ]
The WTO aggreement allows a signatory country to restrict businesses from engaging in conduct the country finds to be against the morals of that country, but they cannot use the "moral" exception to restrict businesses from outside the country while having carve outs for businesses inside the country. So unless the USA bans all interstate transmission of bets for horse racing and multistate lotteries, the WTO found that the USA was in violation by excluding foreign competition and therefor providing for a home country business monopoly. If the EU sees that as a major protectionist movement, they may take action. I don't think that will happen as there are several EU countries that are trying to restrict online gambling and it is a current point of contention for them as a group. I doubt they could start an offense against the USA when their own member states are arguing the same point.

Edit The WTO aggreement has no concern for state laws, it is entirely a national issue. As long as there is a federal exemption for betting on horse racing and multi-state lotteries, the WTO agreement prohibits USA law from restricting foriegn entry into the market of offering gambling. If the USA outlaws all interstate betting, then their declaration that outside countries could not legally operate would not be in violation of the WTO aggreement.

[Guin]

Well there was the positive move by Italy last week to move to a regulated market for online gambling.

Now if only the US could catch up to Europe!