Online gaming firms consider legal challenge to US ban ...GOOD READ..

Dante · Oct 6, 2006

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]· British-based companies could mount WTO case
· Antiguan government says it will work with websites[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Hans Kundnani
Friday October 6, 2006
The Guardian

[/FONT]British-based online gambling companies could join forces with the Antiguan government to challenge the new US legislation targeting internet gambling that wiped an estimated £4bn from the sector's stockmarket value on Monday.
Antigua, which has already successfully challenged previous US laws on internet gambling, said yesterday it would be willing to work with UK companies such as Sportingbet to challenge what they see as US protectionism. Following a complaint from Antigua, the World Trade Organisation ruled last year that US laws on online gambling contravened its rules. A WTO panel will decide in November whether the US is now complying with its rules.

REST of the article here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gambling/story/0,,1888968,00.html

WildBill · Oct 6, 2006

Good stuff, but I do worry about any public work on this. If they come on too strong the bastards like Frist, Leach and Kyl will say "Look at all these foreign companies who prey on our children. They won't respect our morals and are fighting to ruin our society through international courts. We won't let them win." And then it all continues on. Light resistance and quiet efforts are better, these fools feel less inclined to spout shit.

sean1 · Oct 6, 2006

If England (not sportingbet, but sportingbet backed by Parliment) files a formal complaint about this law with the WTO, this law will be overturned by the US congress or vetoed by the president faster than i can place a bet online.

It is all fine and dandy to pass some stupid unenforceable law because bible thumping Frist, how long is it alcoholic, and I'm too good for your latte want it passed for some votes. The minute the US's biggest ally shows up and says we will not allow you to regulate international comerce or we will do ___, ___, and ___ (Pull out of Iraq would be a winner) this thing will dissapear faster than they can burn the paper it is written on.

Sean

Sean

CHOPTALK · Oct 6, 2006

If I were the books, I would just go ahead and let the bill pass. I wish they would understand how our goverment works. GIVE THE DOG A BONE!

This is just a little window dressing for the conservative moral police to make them feel important.

This may be the very law that keeps the goverment from persuing laws that would really make life bad for the gambler.

Let the law pass!!!!!!!

This could be the greatest thing that has ever happened to the gambling community yet!!

D2bets · Oct 6, 2006

sean1 said:
If England (not sportingbet, but sportingbet backed by Parliment) files a formal complaint about this law with the WTO, this law will be overturned by the US congress or vetoed by the president faster than i can place a bet online.

It is all fine and dandy to pass some stupid unenforceable law because bible thumping Frist, how long is it alcoholic, and I'm too good for your latte want it passed for some votes. The minute the US's biggest ally shows up and says we will not allow you to regulate international comerce or we will do ___, ___, and ___ (Pull out of Iraq would be a winner) this thing will dissapear faster than they can burn the paper it is written on.

Sean

Sean

I don't know about that. The President will not veto this bill. That is the lock of the millenium. He will not veto any bill (unless maybe they attach a statement saying that it kills a bunch of stem cells).

Now what can happen is they just never issue Regulations and let the law die on the vines with zero authority or enforcement behind it. But if you think the U.S. government will just run away because the Brits object then I think you've just miscalculated.

WildBill · Oct 6, 2006

True if Dems were in charge they could tack on something pro-abortion and the thing would get vetoed instantly. Otherwise if the GOP Congress passes something W is 99.9% likely to sign. He won't veto shit.

sean1 · Oct 6, 2006

See, unlike Antigua, who relies on the the WTO to issue penalties, the Brits can simply issue penalties themselves.

If the Brits called up George and said we will pull out of Iraq next week if you sign this shit, there is no way he would sign.

I don't think the Brits will go that far, but they could put significant pressure on the US to never write this into law...
Sean

D2bets · Oct 6, 2006

sean1 said:
See, unlike Antigua, who relies on the the WTO to issue penalties, the Brits can simply issue penalties themselves.

If the Brits called up George and said we will pull out of Iraq next week if you sign this shit, there is no way he would sign.

I don't think the Brits will go that far, but they could put significant pressure on the US to never write this into law...
Sean

THe pulling out Iraq thing would never happen (unfortunately) but ehat I think they can do is joint the WTO action, get an injunction and then start enforcing trade penalties and sanctions. While Antigua might not have that much clout, UK would have plenty if they wanted to go down that route.

Whoson1st · Oct 6, 2006

I think the greatest concern is will Neteller or Instadebit stop US business. (We are ALL still CERTAIN that this new law contain NO penalties for the player..right)

Dante · Oct 6, 2006

Whoson1st said:
I think the greatest concern is will Neteller or Instadebit stop US business. (We are ALL still CERTAIN that this new law contain NO penalties for the player..right)

OH GOD WHO!! do not worry so much man...at least take the weekend off... your gonna get me all worried again to :smoker2: :smoker2: :smoker2: :smoker2:

LGBoots · Oct 6, 2006

sean1 said:
See, unlike Antigua, who relies on the the WTO to issue penalties, the Brits can simply issue penalties themselves.

If the Brits called up George and said we will pull out of Iraq next week if you sign this shit, there is no way he would sign.

I don't think the Brits will go that far, but they could put significant pressure on the US to never write this into law...
Sean

Blair will never stand up to Bush :cryingcry

He is soon to quit as leader of the British New Labour party. He ain't going to 'rock the boat' with all the millions he will soon be earning on the US lecture circuit

ucking:

stef · Oct 6, 2006

First off a little bit clueless here, check that ALOT clueless here but since when does the US listen to anyone, we are GOD and we police the world.
Second off we will be OK. Best of luck.

xpanda · Oct 6, 2006

WildBill said:
Good stuff, but I do worry about any public work on this. If they come on too strong the bastards like Frist, Leach and Kyl will say "Look at all these foreign companies who prey on our children. They won't respect our morals and are fighting to ruin our society through international courts. We won't let them win." And then it all continues on. Light resistance and quiet efforts are better, these fools feel less inclined to spout shit.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

If the UK joins Antigua in their fight at the WTO, with precedent already set, this ridiculous fascist game is over for Frist and his minions. Threat of sanctions from the UK over preventing citizens from playing poker online? Given the public support and/or total apathy for legalised gambling, why would any politician risk fights against industry lobbyists affected by sanctions for an issue hardly even on the radar? Remember how fast the US folded once Europe issued sanctions over the steel tarrif dispute?

The UK needs to GROW A PAIR right bloody now and get their asses to the WTO and fight this fight.

Dante · Oct 6, 2006

xpanda said:
The UK needs to GROW A PAIR right bloody now and get their asses to the WTO and fight this fight.

:monsters- damnnnnnnnnn

Whoson1st · Oct 6, 2006

:monsters- :monsters-

Dante said:
:monsters- damnnnnnnnnn

Double DAMM!!

xpanda · Oct 6, 2006

I'm sorry, I just really hate politicians.

The UK gov't - against the wishes of its citizens - follows the US into this crazy-assed war in Iraq. And this is how the US repays them? By decimating a perfectly legal, tax-generating industry that even Americans could give a crap about?

If I were Blair, it would be ON.

Woody0 · Oct 6, 2006

The interesting thing is that Nigel Payne has been in Antigua since Tuesday and Sportingbet promised to "comply with all international law".

Sportingbet, and as many of its competitors as it can get together (Party Poker etc.), need to file a complaint with the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the enormous financial loss they have suffered as a consequence of the US passing legislation that deliberately contravenes a ruling of the WTO. The UK now needs to go to the WTO, either as an add on or interested party to the Antigua and Barbuda action or to file a new complaint, whichever is procedurally corrrect.

Since the spokesperson for the US Trade representative to the WTO says that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is not a part of the Antiguan action then perhaps the UK needs to mount a new and separate complaint procedure.

It is blatant protectionism when US citizens can bet place interstate bets online on "the sport of Kings" but not with foreign service providers.

xpanda · Oct 6, 2006

Woody0 said:
Since the spokesperson for the US Trade representative to the WTO says that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is not a part of the Antiguan action ...

Surely it's just as challengable? Is preventing the transmission of funds to a foreign online betting shop, while simultaneously allowing the transmission of funds to domestic online betting shops, not technically and philosophically the same case Antigua argued in the first place?

Whoson1st · Oct 6, 2006

Woody0 said:
The interesting thing is that Nigel Payne has been in Antigua since Tuesday and Sportingbet promised to "comply with all international law".

Sportingbet, and as many of its competitors as it can get together (Party Poker etc.), need to file a complaint with the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the enormous financial loss they have suffered as a consequence of the US passing legislation that deliberately contravenes a ruling of the WTO. The UK now needs to go to the WTO, either as an add on or interested party to the Antigua and Barbuda action or to file a new complaint, whichever is procedurally corrrect.

Since the spokesperson for the US Trade representative to the WTO says that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is not a part of the Antiguan action then perhaps the UK needs to mount a new and separate complaint procedure.

It is blatant protectionism when US citizens can bet place interstate bets online on "the sport of Kings" but not with foreign service providers.

I agree with X !
Now --at some point could and would the US be asked to LEAVE the WTO for failing to follow it's ruling(s); especially if the UK speaks up as they SHOULD!

I'm just thinking that our government is SO ARROGANT as to laugh at the WTO......

xpanda · Oct 6, 2006

Whoson1st said:
I agree with X !
Now --at some point could and would the US be asked to LEAVE the WTO for failing to follow it's ruling(s); especially if the UK speaks up as they SHOULD!

I'm just thinking that our government is SO ARROGANT as to laugh at the WTO......

The US didn't specifically laugh at the WTO (the WTO has no punitive wing, per se, only the ability to grant permission to member countries to impose sanctions on those countries not in compliance.) Technically, the US laughed at Antigua. This is understandable and predictable, as their is nothing Antigua can withhold from the US that would do any significant damage to the US economy.

The UK, on the other hand, if and when they put their purses down, can achieve the same ruling - EASILY. If the US continues to ignore the ruling of the WTO, then the UK is granted permission to impose sanctions. This would be an unacceptable situation for the Americans, especially over a position that is blatantly hypocritical, protectionist, and against the wishes of the majority who care enough in the first place.