Antigua may work with UK firms to challenge law (article)

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that poker players may not care where they get to play poker as long as they can play .... but come on guys .... this is a truly disgusting Govt. if this game plan is true. I am increasingly inclined to believe it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the same thing that's been going on constantly in our government for a century or more. This is why there is no lesser of two evils. Demopublicans have a monopoly on government and they realize that they can abuse that monopoly to screw over the American people. Voting for either one of those parties supports this behavior.

[Bluffoon]

Forget the WTO.

We(US)will use the WTO when it suits our purposes and ignore it when it doesn't.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Forget the WTO.

We(US)will use the WTO when it suits our purposes and ignore it when it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at it this way the WTO is on your side and they have a stack that can cost the US billions (and US legislators millions), if you ignore the WTO who the hell else has the stack to hurt them?

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys seriously think that the bozo in the White House and his fascist minions give a damn about the WTO? Hell, they don't care what the UN or anybody else in the world thinks about us.

[/ QUOTE ]
Billions of dollars in tariffs on U.S. exports to Europe might get their attention. That's the potential penalty if the Europeans file a case and we lose.

Unhappy poker players don't matter in Washington. Thousands of lost jobs however make a much bigger impression and just in time for the 2008 elections [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img].

Actually the Antiguan case has undoubtedly cost us far more than our foolish politicians realize. The psychological power of the WTO to lower barriers to U.S. exports is of enormous importance. By humiliating the WTO as we have, we've undermined their prestige and made it easier for other countries to create and maintain their own trade barriers.

[/ QUOTE ]


Who that the U.S. does major trade with is gonna get in a trade war over online gambling ?

[MyTurn2Raise]

I wish I had a link, but a family member said there was news coverage on this during one of the talk radio shows during his commute. The panel members said the US is pressuring Antigua to drop its objections.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully the U.S will actually comply with the Europeans and WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm extremely skeptical about a WTO decision carrying any weight for the US. Ask Canada how effective it is to win trade rulings (see softwood lumber). Canada won about eleventy billion rulings in a row and the US just told them to stick it anyway. It helped that the current Canadian government was/is spineless beyond description but the point remains.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the WTO cavalry to bail me out.

Tony

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm bewildered that this WTO crap keeps coming up over and over; there's got to be a lot of naive youngsters here or ppl from outside the U.S. to go on and on about this pipedream. 99% of the U.S. public has no idea what the WTO is, cares what it is or even cares that it exists.

Regardless of the merits, justifications or anything else, as a practical matter the U.S. is not going to have country-wide gambling imposed on it by the WTO. A U.S. politician trying to explain to the electorate that we must gamble because the WTO said so would be crucified.

WTO may mean something where you live, it means nothing here. Forget the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

It meant something to the U.S. in this instance (among others btw):

Bush Ditches Steel Import Duties

From the article:

President George W Bush has repealed US tariffs on imported steel to avoid a damaging trade war.

The decision follows a World Trade Organisation decision that the duties, imposed in March 2002, are illegal.


The issue isn't about having the WTO impose gambling across the U.S. The issue involves U.S. protectionism regarding the Horse Racing industry where the U.S. is allowing gambling via the internet but showing preference to a particular industry. My understanding is that the new law does address horse racing via the internet indicating that the legal status of horse racing via the internet is indeterminate. My understanding is that the legality of making bets on horse races has been upheld in the courts but not sure. Anyway as you can see from the article if organizations like the EU takes up the cause for companies that are in countries that are part of their organization, then the U.S. may be forced to do something. The threat of EU sanctions does have an effect on the U.S. Whether or not the EU would enjoin a place like Antigua is something I really have no idea about it's liklihood.

[/ QUOTE ]

A damaging trade war concering steel is a lot more likely to get the US into comliance than a terrif on our internet gambling exports. We dont have any internet gambling exports to speak of that would be damaged.

Greg

[/ QUOTE ]

I was pointing out that the threat of EU sanctions does have an impact on the U.S. The liklihood of that threat is another story. Of course I agree that steel tarrifs is a more significant issue. One thing that I think is entirely possible is that the current U.S. position on online gaming represents an "erosion" of good faith by the U.S. in living up to it's WTO agreements to our WTO trading partners. The recent failure to reach agreements during the Doha round of WTO trade talks indicates to me that the environment between the EU and the U.S. is contentious. This adds a little bit more fuel to the fire so to speak regarding the contentious nature in seeking trade agreements.

[Greg Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
From the article:

President George W Bush has repealed US tariffs on imported steel to avoid a damaging trade war.

The decision follows a World Trade Organisation decision that the duties, imposed in March 2002, are illegal.


The issue isn't about having the WTO impose gambling across the U.S. The issue involves U.S. protectionism regarding the Horse Racing industry where the U.S. is allowing gambling via the internet but showing preference to a particular industry. My understanding is that the new law does address horse racing via the internet indicating that the legal status of horse racing via the internet is indeterminate. My understanding is that the legality of making bets on horse races has been upheld in the courts but not sure. Anyway as you can see from the article if organizations like the EU takes up the cause for companies that are in countries that are part of their organization, then the U.S. may be forced to do something. The threat of EU sanctions does have an effect on the U.S. Whether or not the EU would enjoin a place like Antigua is something I really have no idea about it's liklihood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush is a Republican. I'm sure he was deeply relieved to have an excuse to dump those steel tariffs. He only supported the tariffs in the first place because the issue came up right after he took office following a close election and feared that the Democrats would be able to take West Virginia in 2004 if he fought them over protectionist policies.

Keep in mind that the WTO and the UN are two different organizations. The WTO is widely viewed as an honest broker, and the threat of retaliatory sanctions is meaningful. The UN has always been powerless and the series of corruption scandals (oil-for-food, sex-for-food, etc.) over the last decade or so has seriously damaged their credibility. As we speak, a number of Americans are calling for Kofi Annan to be tried as a war criminal for his role in Bosnia. Comparing the UN to the WTO is apples and oranges.

[Phil123]

[ QUOTE ]
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barro...n/index_en.htm

Peter Mandelson's website. Incl contact options. This is the guy who will be taking on the US over this. The guardian article says that the EU firms have not complained formally yet. It will strengthen his hand if US consumers complain about this - in particular the higher rake of B&M casinos. Make it clear that you want to use EU based firms (poker and sports betting)and that you believe this bill is protectionism in breach of WTO.

EU based affiliates may want to ask about registering a complaint as effectively you are locked out of the US market.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have just sent off a quick email to Peter Mandelson. This is what I've said:

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Peter, I am writing to you as a UK citizen who is very concerned about the attaching of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement act to the port securities bill in the USA. This bill was passed on 30th September. As I'm sure you're aware the bill prevents US financial institutions from depositing their customers money to online gaming sites. When this bill was passed some companies such as Party Gaming lost 60% of their stock value as soon as the London Stock Exchange opened. In my opinion the US government is just protecting it's own gambling trade, for example they are still allowing Lottery's and Horse racing bets and of course their own casino's to trade, so this is obviously not a matter of morality. As so much damage has been done to companies listed on the London Stock Exchange I feel that the EU should be working with the WTO to stop America from protecting it's own trade at the expense of Europe's. I hope you feel the same way and can do something about this unfair USA law.
Thanks in advance and I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind Regards

[/ QUOTE ]

[Zele]

Right on the money, Phil.

[ericicecream]

This is a good letter, Phil.

As americans, in comparing the local poker games available as compared to the global internet games we can play in, other arguments are that the foreign games offer us better rake, better bonuses/comps, freerolls, etc. These are things that the local gambling industry does not offer and doesn't want to have to compete with.