Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
If I am the EU, I am quite livid that they shut out their gaming in the US, but AOL and MSFT, etc. are setting up shop in Europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

A point I have made in several letters to my congressional reps. and one I think needs to be brought out more.

obg

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

They could comply by exempting Antiguan companies from three laws and be done with it. It would be less than 100 words, maybe less than 50. Let them do it. Let them "Port Security" it like they did with the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I don't think most of the other countries are interested in bringing their own case. Even the EU seems more interested in what other concessions they can extract, despite their latest public comments. If another country brought a new case it could take years and have to be dealt with by another administration.

Squaring up with Antigua would allow the US to cancel their Article 21 withdrawal. The matter would be "settled" until another country brought and litigated a case.

[/ QUOTE ]



Jay,

Surely you and your contacts in Antigua don't see this exempt Antigua only solution as being plausible do you? If the U.S. is going to cave, the effects of either exempting Antigua alone and the world's gaming companies moving there to market to the U.S., or exempting the entire world (complying fully), would be the same. So why would the U.S. wish to especially benefit Antigua which forced them to comply in some manner?

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]

Jay, are you sure about EU, I have read numerous articles about their gambling execs wanting the EU to get tough with US about opening online gambling market.
Of course, if the law stated that Antiquan online gambling companies were exempt from federal and state gambling laws that would greatly benefit Antiqua. Can its islands hold all the online gaming companies in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the articles you are referring to can all trace their roots back to the same quote or press release. There are EU gaming interests that are doing an excellent job at publicity and getting their view out there, over and over.

Yes, the head of EU trade did make some comments recently, but everything else you read is being pumped out by other organizations. I could be wrong, but the vibe I am getting is that this is not important to them. Could it change if the gaming companies lobby hard enough, maybe leave some money on a table somewhere? Sure.

Antigua and Barbuda are merely two islands, and only one would really qualify. It is 108 square miles. And no, there's not room for everyone.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They could comply by exempting Antiguan companies from three laws and be done with it. It would be less than 100 words, maybe less than 50. Let them do it. Let them "Port Security" it like they did with the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I don't think most of the other countries are interested in bringing their own case. Even the EU seems more interested in what other concessions they can extract, despite their latest public comments. If another country brought a new case it could take years and have to be dealt with by another administration.

Squaring up with Antigua would allow the US to cancel their Article 21 withdrawal. The matter would be "settled" until another country brought and litigated a case.

[/ QUOTE ]



Jay,

Surely you and your contacts in Antigua don't see this exempt Antigua only solution as being plausible do you? If the U.S. is going to cave, the effects of either exempting Antigua alone and the world's gaming companies moving there to market to the U.S., or exempting the entire world (complying fully), would be the same. So why would the U.S. wish to especially benefit Antigua which forced them to comply in some manner?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it plausible? Yes. Likely, No.

But if the US really wants to "Comply," that's all they need to do.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it plausible? Yes. Likely, No.

But if the US really wants to "Comply," that's all they need to do.

[/ QUOTE ]


Jay,

I guess we got a semantics thing going on here. I equate plausibility with reasonable likelihood. So I would say that the scenario you propose is "possible", but not "plausible". Mainly because if the administration is forced by congress to cave in, that they are going to seek to spite Antigua in some way for forcing the situation upon them.

[Legislurker]

http://www.majorwager.com/forums/mes...-gambling.html

additional info, same tack

[tangled]

I don't understand why any law or any involvement by Congress or even any acceptance by the states is necessary to end this dispute. When a treaty is ratified, Congress is giving the Executive Branch the authority to enact that treaty. GATS has already been ratified by the
Senate. If Antigua and the USTR come to some agreement on how to satisfy Antigua, and thereby the WTO decision, then that agreement will trump existing law (Wire Act, UIGEA, etc.) through Charming Betsy.

I don't know though. I certainly could be wrong.????

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why any law or any involvement by Congress or even any acceptance by the states is necessary to end this dispute. When a treaty is ratified, Congress is giving the Executive Branch the authority to enact that treaty. If Antigua and the USTR come to some agreement on how to satisfy Antigua, and thereby the WTO decision, then that agreement will trump existing law (Wire Act, UIGEA, etc.) through Charming Betsy.

I don't know though. I certainly could be wrong.????

[/ QUOTE ]

The law that ratified the WTO requires the USTR to consult Congress when the US loses a WTO case and advise Congress on necessary legislation to obey the WTO decision. Somehow that did not happen in this case.

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why any law or any involvement by Congress or even any acceptance by the states is necessary to end this dispute. When a treaty is ratified, Congress is giving the Executive Branch the authority to enact that treaty. If Antigua and the USTR come to some agreement on how to satisfy Antigua, and thereby the WTO decision, then that agreement will trump existing law (Wire Act, UIGEA, etc.) through Charming Betsy.

I don't know though. I certainly could be wrong.????

[/ QUOTE ]

The law that ratified the WTO requires the USTR to consult Congress when the US loses a WTO case and advise Congress on necessary legislation to obey the WTO decision. Somehow that did not happen in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

JP I edited my post. The treaty I was talking about was GATS. That treaty is the root of this problem I thought.

Again, I don't know.???

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why any law or any involvement by Congress or even any acceptance by the states is necessary to end this dispute. When a treaty is ratified, Congress is giving the Executive Branch the authority to enact that treaty. If Antigua and the USTR come to some agreement on how to satisfy Antigua, and thereby the WTO decision, then that agreement will trump existing law (Wire Act, UIGEA, etc.) through Charming Betsy.

I don't know though. I certainly could be wrong.????

[/ QUOTE ]

The law that ratified the WTO requires the USTR to consult Congress when the US loses a WTO case and advise Congress on necessary legislation to obey the WTO decision. Somehow that did not happen in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

JP I edited my post. The treaty I was talking about was GATS. That treaty is the root of this problem I thought.

Again, I don't know.???

[/ QUOTE ]

So in political terms like Pres Clinton showed you need more than 34 Senators to agree to be held by the WTO's sense of Congress of is some past Congress really meant to include gaming in the GATT agreements?

Not quite the first and goal on the one inch line, but more Hail Mary, perhaps...........



D$D