[ QUOTE ]
Jay,
In this
NYT story on the issue, note the following quote from the USTR:
"Gretchen Hamel, a spokeswoman for the United States trade representative in Washington, said that the office would continue to try to find a mutually satisfactory resolution to the dispute."
Now of course that is BS, as from what I have read of the issue, including your postings here, the US hasn't in fact tried to compromise. Of course it may now, but there is no "continue" because they haven't been trying in the past.
You have posted in the past that the US has 3 options to comply:
1) allow Antigua based companies total access the US remote gaming market;
2) outlaw all domestic remote gaming;
3) negotiate a bi-lateral treaty.
Now #3 basically seems like #1. If it isn't the same, then what difference would there be exactly? And wouldn't it mean also that any other country, even though they didn't join Antigua's case directly, could initiate their own case before the WTO and demand similar treatment? Which again means not just #1, but a super #1 where all foreign companies have access.
What I am saying is that I don't see a negotiated resolution of the situation that basically doesn't involve just wholesale repeal of not only the IUGEA but also the Wire Act as it pertains to foreign companies at least. Or do you envision some other type of trade concessions being given while Antiguan companies still can't access the US remote gaming market?
[/ QUOTE ]
A lot has to do with how many other countries let the US give up their commitment in the sector, either for nothing or for something. We'll know more about who put in claims on Monday.
Remember, the UIGEA makes nothing legal or illegal that wasn't the same status the day before. It just adds criminal liabilities to the banks.
Again, without going into details, I can see a fair settlement that would make everyone happy, except the anti-gambling zealots.
And yes, they are full of it when they talk about continiuing the negotiations.