GOOD Wall Street Journal Story

[oldbookguy]

This is one we need Engineer to add to the PPA site and an action alert to Congress.
Plus, it clears up the status of negotiations with the WTO, congress WILL have to approve the deal!

VERY good for us.

Link - http://online.wsj.com/public/article...870406171.html
(membership required so I will copy whole story here)

Also, G911 has the story.

EU Service Firms Could Gain U.S. Access Thanks to Internet Gambling Case
By JOHN W. MILLER, Wall Street Journal
August 23, 2007; Page A2

BRUSSELS -- The Bush administration, pressured by an unfavorable ruling by the World Trade Organization, plans to push for legal changes that could make it easier for European service companies, from engineering firms to law firms and shipping companies, to do business in the U.S., officials say.

The U.S. is required to offer trading partners greater access to the American market because in May it lost a long-running dispute at the World Trade Organization over laws that banned foreign firms from offering Internet gambling services in the U.S.

• The News: The White House plans to push for changes that could make it easier for European service companies to do business in the U.S.
• The Background: After the U.S. banned foreign gambling Web sites, EU trade officials sought compensation for billions of euros in lost income. The U.S. has been in a trade dispute over online gambling since 2003, mainly with Antigua and Barbuda.
• What's Next: EU and U.S. negotiators are working out details of a compensation offer to open some sectors of the U.S. services market to greater foreign competition.Europe's online gambling firms were hit particularly hard and complained to the European Union's executive arm in Brussels. EU trade officials took up the matter with the WTO, seeking compensation for billions of euros in lost income. The EU invoked a rarely used WTO rule that requires a country that closes one market to foreign companies to open others to compensate trading partners.

A host of countries, including India, Japan and Canada, have filed similar claims for compensation, but the talks with the EU and its $8 trillion service sector promise to have the biggest financial impact. As a result, while any affected sectors would be opened to all 150 WTO members, European companies stand to gain the most.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative this month began talks with EU officials on opening some sectors of the U.S. services market to greater foreign competition.

To be sure, the issue will be contentious and subject to fierce lobbying. Congress and state legislatures would have to sign off on changing laws that now protect American service concerns. States generally control access to sectors like insurance, engineering and legal services. The federal government controls foreign access to activities like shipping, telecommunications and postal services.


The U.S. Internet gambling market is valued at more than $15 billion, so the outcome of the U.S.-EU negotiations will likely be worth billions of euros to European companies. "We have to offer something substantive," says a senior U.S. official.

Global trade in services is growing quickly. U.S. consumers bought $314.6 billion of foreign services in 2005, twice as much as in 1997, including banking, insurance and airplane trips. The areas in which European companies hope to gain greater access include insurance, legal services and mail delivery, says Pascal Kerneis, secretary-general of the European Services Forum, a Brussels lobbying group.

One example of the kind of practice the EU could seek to change: Today, a foreign lawyer or law firm can't practice law in New Jersey without residing in the U.S. (though they can in Maryland). Foreign companies are also prohibited from offering some forms of legal services in Delaware, a lucrative market because of the high number of corporate registrations in the state.

This means U.S. trade officials have to include states in their negotiations. Setting policy on trade in goods, by contrast, is relatively simple because the federal government controls tariffs on all imports.

According to several legal experts, the states might not be easy to win over. "Frankly, I'd be very surprised if the Bush administration pushes for federal legislation that would affect access to U.S. markets for foreign lawyers," says Laurel Terry, a professor at the Penn State Dickinson School of Law and an expert in the regulation of the legal industry. "The issue of lawyer regulation is very sensitive and has traditionally been handled by the state judiciary."

The U.S. is required to submit a formal offer of market access to the EU by Sept. 22. If the sides disagree, a WTO panel will arbitrate. That has never happened in a case on services, so the outcome would set a precedent. In the end, the U.S. could hope to mollify the EU by offering trade concessions in other protected areas where the EU and U.S. disagree, including agriculture, military contracts or subsidies to aircraft makers.

British gambling companies such as 888 Holdings PLC and Party Gaming PLC -- which drew more than half their revenue from the U.S. -- lost billions in stock-market value after a new U.S. law banned credit-card companies from receiving payments from foreign gaming Web sites.

The USTR could be bailed out by Congress were it to change the law to again allow foreign firms to offer online gambling. Several such bills are on the table.

"The U.S. could make this all go away by passing legislation," says Nao Matsukata, a former senior U.S trade official and a policy adviser at Alston & Bird, which represents clients on online-gaming issues.

So far, none of the bills have garnered enough support. European gambling companies say they have given up hope of doing business in the lucrative U.S. market for now.

The forced concession to the EU on services marks the end of a losing battle the U.S. has fought at the WTO, mainly with the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda. In 2003, the country challenged U.S. prosecution of foreign online-gambling companies. The U.S. argued it was entitled to ban foreign gambling companies because it couldn't have foreseen the rise of the Internet when it first pledged to open part of its services market in 1994.

obg

[Legislurker]

You SOB. I was just about to post that. Its an eye opener, and Im going to email it to some people Ive been pestering for info at some think tanks. I have a couple questions after reading that.

1. US gambling market valued at $15bn. Ok, does the EU get compensation for a $15bn(I dont know if they are a single country in GATS or not) or 27x $15bn. Huge difference.

2. Will the EU get sanctions IF states or Congress have to approve new laws? Say an arb panel comes back with a decision, but in 2 years the US hasnt complied......

3. When can the US back down and not renegotiate? If we are going to muster support somewhere we have to know who the losers will be, and get them on their Congress delegation. If there is a date of No Return we need to know it and start the phone calls.

On a side note, If John Pappas is half-serious about improving the PPA's job approval rating this should be issue #1. He or his lobbyists should be in Senate offices today talking this up. And working on figuring out by hook or by crook what industries are being sold up the river. If its legal services, maybe we should call up the Trial Lawyers PAC. Scumbags they are, but they know how to operate on Capitol Hill. No Dem can afford to ignore them, and few Republicans.

[Jay Cohen]

You'll notice the EU doesn't give a rat's behind about the gaming sector. They are very happy to just use this opportunity to grab market share in other sectors.

I'm sure the reason the EU does not have access today is because there are American interests that have fought long and hard to keep them out. I'm sure they'll appreciate being sold out to protect American gaming interests and satisfy the religious right and their baseless worries.

If the US would just come to the Antiguan negotiating table in good faith, they could put all of this behind them and save the country billions.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Will the EU get sanctions IF states or Congress have to approve new laws? Say an arb panel comes back with a decision, but in 2 years the US hasnt complied......

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big hope for us, this may be the wake-up call to congress we need, they ARE going to be presented with this package (what ever it is) to approve in order to continue ignoring the WTO.

Also, there are still more countries we have no idea what the areas they are wanting are such as Japan, Australia, China, et al.

Agreed, the PPA needs to be all over this one and fast!

I will be drafting a follow-up to Rockefeller later this morning with copies to byrd, Capito and the other WV congressional reps.

EVERY senator and house member needs a letter on this and a copy of the actual article with the USTR's comments and plan.

obg

ps- sorry I beat you too it.

[oldbookguy]

Great point Jay, one we should included in our communications.

obg

[Legislurker]

Jay's point is great, its just we don't have a mouthpeice to get the word out. Not even a [censored] peep over at Drudge about this. Fox, CNN, MSNBC........nothing. We are still losing the press battle.

And lest we ignore him, Costigan is weighing in.
http://www.gambling911.com/online-gambling-082407.html

I think what he is saying(its painful to read his work word for word sometimes) is that the Feds should just cave in to iMega and that would make everything go away. He doesn't go into specifics on how that would work. Im not sure if a Curt decision would work for the WTO. Executive order maybe. The Feds would have to actively challenge and overturn several state laws after issuing an executive order. Maybe, jsut maybe, [censored] is hitting the fan.

[DING-DONG YO]

and once Murdoch finishes with the WSJ, then we won't even have them anymore.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay's point is great, its just we don't have a mouthpeice to get the word out. Not even a [censored] peep over at Drudge about this. Fox, CNN, MSNBC........nothing. We are still losing the press battle.

And lest we ignore him, Costigan is weighing in.
http://www.gambling911.com/online-gambling-082407.html

I think what he is saying(its painful to read his work word for word sometimes) is that the Feds should just cave in to iMega and that would make everything go away. He doesn't go into specifics on how that would work. Im not sure if a Curt decision would work for the WTO. Executive order maybe. The Feds would have to actively challenge and overturn several state laws after issuing an executive order. Maybe, jsut maybe, [censored] is hitting the fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Repealing the UIGEA does not solve the WTO situation. Remember the WTO case pre-dates the UIGEA, which only added insult to injury.

[4_2_it]

Somebody should link the article and an articulate interpretation to Drudge (There is a spot for this on The Drudge Report page). You never know. He likes to post off the wall stuff about government ineptness and people from all political walks look at his site daily.

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
Somebody should link the article and an articulate interpretation to Drudge (There is a spot for this on The Drudge Report page). You never know. He likes to post off the wall stuff about government ineptness and people from all political walks look at his site daily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely critical..Drudge loves to post stuff about government interference and he gets hit in huge numbers. If I knew how, I'd do it, but I don't