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

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

linky, linky

[Anders]

I really, really, really look forward to being able to buy Antiguan-made Mickey Mouse products and keep them as souvenirs of this ridiculous time in our history [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Tofu_boy]

Another Good sign for US.
great post.

[Barrin6]

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

[_Drogo_]

[ 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

[MicroBob]

I think further action in the WTO could conceiveably help keep the U.S. from really getting going on drawing out the specifics of the bank regulations, etc and from prosecuting anybody about it.


It could also encourage more sites to just 'keep on, keepin on' as far as pursuing U.S. customers.
Party might back out now...but perhaps they would be willing to accept Americans again due to further WTO action. Knowing that they have the WTO decision on their side could make a big difference in stuff like that.

If it doesn't make a difference with Party it could still end up making a difference with some other sites who otherwise might pull out like FullTilt perhaps.

[LearnedfromTV]

This is interesting. Practical question related to the idea that "the U.S. won't care about the WTO ruling"-

How do the countries involved interact with other countries when in one of these WTO disputes, especially the major countries (I think we know where Antigua stands)?

In other words, if the WTO rules against the U.S., but the U.S. refuses to change the law (or hasn't changed it yet), which will the UK authorities view as the final word on how its gambling businesses should deal with U.S. customers: the WTO ruling or U.S. law? I don't know the circumstances of US-China or US-Russia disputes, but when the U.S. is in a similar position (Chinese law violates WTO ruling, Chinese refuse to change law), would the U.S. sanction American citizens breaking Chinese law (from U.S. soil)/refuse to cooperate with Chinese authorities? What if the opponent were someone more friendly, like the U.K.?

Knowledgable/researched opinions only please!

[tinhat]

[ 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.

[smartalecc5]

Cliffnotes?

[LearnedfromTV]

[ 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 ]

a) It means something because the U.S. tries to have it mean something when it wants things from other countries.

b) Repealing the internet gambling ban to comply with the WTO (as a part of some larger backroom trade deal) would not ever have to be explained by any politician to anyone unless it suited their interests. Most laws are passed without publicity, politicians select which soundbites they want to campaign on.

c) It wouldn't matter, as a practical matter, if the U.S. ignores the WTO, if the WTO ruling would effectively nullify the law internationally. The biggest dangers are sites shutting their doors and the general public believing online poker is illegal. If the sites have a WTO ruling behind them, can be vocal and clear about the failure of the U.S. government to live up to its international obligations in passing this law, and can provide payment mechanisms that work around the law, things look pretty good.