EU Goes To DC, Presses Lawmakers

[oldbookguy]

This I believe, will be a help to the hearing next week, we need to get busy writuing our reps asking them to have someone there or watching the live feed.

EU presses U.S. to change Internet gambling

By Doug Palmer

WASHINGTON, Nov 8 (Reuters) - The United States needs to change a law that discriminates against European companies that want to offer online gambling services in the U.S. market, the European Union's top trade official said on Thursday.
"What we need to see is a change in U.S. legislation that removes that discrimination against EU operators," EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson told reporters before heading to Capitol Hill to discuss the issue with U.S. lawmakers.

Full story at:

http://www.majorwager.com/forums/mes...bling-law.html

obg

[TheEngineer]

Nice. I just received the original Reuters article: www.reuters.com/article/technology-media-telco-SP-A/idUSN0823911220071109?sp=true

[Lucky]

Wow, this is great. Favorite parts are:

1. Reuters article, not just gambling 911 or whatever
2. Unequivocal language of demands from EU
3. "European Union's top trade official" is doing talking
4. The number "100 billion" being used in legitimate article; tougher for u.s. officials to shrug off as they've done in past.

[Legislurker]

"We're not telling the United States how to regulate this industry. That's not for us to do. All we're saying is, however you choose to regulate, don't discriminate against non-American operators."

Enough Orwellian doublespeak in that to totally confuse me. I wish I knew enough about Brussels to know what EU horse is getting the backing in this. Obviously, the gaming industry more support there than Berlin or Paris. If they can totally have Mandelson's support in this, were back in, [censored]
frank and wexler. You can be sure the FoF delegation to the USTR will offer up some sort of multibillion dollar cow as a counter offer. They have tons more information about the negotiations than we do, at present. Oh to be a fly on the wall when the EU and US trade reps sit and know who is sacrificing what totally unaccountable to voters.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
"We're not telling the United States how to regulate this industry. That's not for us to do. All we're saying is, however you choose to regulate, don't discriminate against non-American operators."

Enough Orwellian doublespeak in that to totally confuse me. I wish I knew enough about Brussels to know what EU horse is getting the backing in this. Obviously, the gaming industry more support there than Berlin or Paris. If they can totally have Mandelson's support in this, were back in, [censored]
frank and wexler. You can be sure the FoF delegation to the USTR will offer up some sort of multibillion dollar cow as a counter offer. They have tons more information about the negotiations than we do, at present. Oh to be a fly on the wall when the EU and US trade reps sit and know who is sacrificing what totally unaccountable to voters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I heard the "service industry" was the saficral "lamb."

Port wharehousing, insurance, and the legal profession of all things.........


D$D

[JPFisher55]

Problem is that insurance and legal professions are regulated by the states. This is not going to change. I really doubt that any $50-100 billion trade concessions to EU exist that Congress would or could pass.
The whole withdrawal of commitment thing is a stall tactic. I suspect that it also is to give the DOJ a counter to the argument that WTO decision should cause the courts to interpret the Wire Act to not include online gambling (also called the Charming Betsy argument). This has been used in both the iMEGA case and the BetOnSport/Kaplan case.
IMO EU is trying to get Congress to pass legislation compliant with WTO to save the WTO process from the calamity it now faces. I hope the Dems listen because Bush will not.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is that insurance and legal professions are regulated by the states. This is not going to change. I really doubt that any $50-100 billion trade concessions to EU exist that Congress would or could pass.
The whole withdrawal of commitment thing is a stall tactic. I suspect that it also is to give the DOJ a counter to the argument that WTO decision should cause the courts to interpret the Wire Act to not include online gambling (also called the Charming Betsy argument). This has been used in both the iMEGA case and the BetOnSport/Kaplan case.
IMO EU is trying to get Congress to pass legislation compliant with WTO to save the WTO process from the calamity it now faces. I hope the Dems listen because Bush will not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without the ability for States to opt out, that is going to create one heck of a S storm.


D$D

[oldbookguy]

The emphasised section is the beautiful part and shows that the USTR, Congress, et al CAN regulate online poker / all gaming and screw the states if they want internationally, so much for states rights being a barrier.

obg


[ QUOTE ]
Problem is that insurance and legal professions are regulated by the states. This is not going to change. I really doubt that any $50-100 billion trade concessions to EU exist that Congress would or could pass.
The whole withdrawal of commitment thing is a stall tactic. I suspect that it also is to give the DOJ a counter to the argument that WTO decision should cause the courts to interpret the Wire Act to not include online gambling (also called the Charming Betsy argument). This has been used in both the iMEGA case and the BetOnSport/Kaplan case.
IMO EU is trying to get Congress to pass legislation compliant with WTO to save the WTO process from the calamity it now faces. I hope the Dems listen because Bush will not.

[/ QUOTE ]

[JPFisher55]

D$D, Internet gambling is a process that involves interstate commerce and communications. Mr. Lee Rouso has already filed litigation challenging the State of Washington's ban of online gambling to violate the commerce clause of the US constitution. If Congress passes a law to fully comply with the WTO decision that law would have to permit US citizens at access and send money to foreign online gambling sites. States would be bound to follow that law under the Supremacy clause of the US constitution, which is still enforced by federal courts. Of course the states are bound to honor the WTO treaty and decisions. Insurance and the practice of law usually do not involve interstate commerce. The power of the federal government to regulate them is uncertain, especially the practice of law.

[Legislurker]

Well remember the WTO doesn't give two [censored] about what the states do and what the feds do. Penalties will be imposed for failures to come into compliance. We have busted countries for crying federalism before, that doesn't work. The Feds have jurisdiction over any gd bit of commerce they want. If they want to stop your local city from issuing jaywalking tickets all they have to do is say it influences jaywalking infractions in another state so its their purview. The commerce clause has never before run into a barrier from the courts, and gaming law won't be that barrier. The law would be an interesting matter, I know Breyer would hear the case for the sheer joy of the mental masturbation the issue brings up. Look at the rulings on medical pot JP, the price of pot was deemed to be affected by letting it grow for cancer patients, therefore affecting commerce in another state. Keeping out foreign lawyers raises the price of legal defense in a state, hence affecting interstate commerce. Its ridiculous the standard is that low, but thats where it is. Its my second priority for an Amendment, but the Feds love it too much to bring it up.
The area sanctions or penalties come in doesnt respect state laws in the least. What would be the penalty for not opening up to the EU in the decided sector is I don't know, but they can find a big enough stick. And there is no recourse short of blowing up the global trading system. We will have to abide by the panel's decision, whatever it is.
At least the media can share the blame with Bush for it when it comes to pass.