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

[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.

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
It will strengthen his hand if US consumers complain about this - in particular the higher rake of B&M casinos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who would US consumers complain to in this case?

I'm one whiny bastard [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[adios]

[ 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.

[APerfect10]

On a side note can someone please explain this to me:

[ QUOTE ]
PartyGaming, which has been forced to renegotiate its loan facility as a result of the US legislation, is also hoping to take over smaller rival Gamesys, which has all its customers in the UK.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Richas]

[ 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 ]

Well they probably will care when the EU et al slaps the sanctions on them, they can and will get tough on this, not so much to force US capitulation on poker but as part of the overall negotiations. The EU might only use it as a bargaining chip at the end but they will use this most blatant breach as a stick to beat the US. In terms of timescales we are talking years (1-3) but just because it's a runner runner doesnt mean you should discount it. Frankly given the pessimism that US legislators will ever give ground on this despite domestic pressure maybe your best option is to let them say WTO made us do this we don't like it, individual states can still choose to ban all gambling but that's down to them. Giving the legislators an excuse that concessions here are needed to get US goods and services into foreign markets may be the only way.

You are better off lobbying the WTO to protect your consumer rights to do business with the EU than say beating up the PPA or attacking Poker celebs for not doing more.

Don't believe the WTO has teeth? This is from Feb

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/13/business/wto.php

$4bn of sanctions for giving US companies tax breaks, they'll get permission for more than that for locking companies out from a $12bn a year business. As the article shows the US phased out the tax breaks in question (sneaking in others) but this is so blatant such delaying tactics to complicate the debate will not work for them. The bill is too draconian for that.

[Hellmouth]

[ 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

[Richas]

[ 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 ]

The EU wouldn't choose gambling exports they would pick whatever will apply the most pressure (and help EU businesses in other sectors). Top of the list would be Boeing right now, maybe cotton, Microsoft, hey tell them who paid for the bill and they can just add the company to the list for the hell of it. Last time the US tried it on the UK they picked pringle jumpers because their factory is in a marginal seat. These sanctions lists are a dirty business.

[Lost_My_Stink]

[ 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 ]

Usually Lawman gets under my skin, but here, he hit the nail on the head.

If the US ignores the UN about invading Irag, do you really think they give 2 [censored] about the WTO?

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]

Usually Lawman gets under my skin, but here, he hit the nail on the head.

If the US ignores the UN about invading Irag, do you really think they give 2 [censored] about the WTO?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the UN can't impose sanctions on their contributors or key industries in their state. Besides which they cared enough about the UN to send Colin Powell along to lie to them and to make sure that today US troops are working under a new UN mandate.

[AlexM]

[ 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 ]

When the WTO starts granting people immunity from American copyright laws, they'll care. Not because they'll care themselves, but because our corporations will get pissed.