KYL decided by tonight, WTO doa

#1
The Kyl bill will probably be decided by tonight. My guess is it will go down for the 7th or is it 8th time. The senator made some concessions as usual but this time he shafted the Indians, no exemption for them, horse racing has theirs of course and the AGA got a bone by being granted an inTRAstate casino wagering exemption. The state lotteries ???, we'll have to see how that works out. If this passes every, EVERY, bank transfer must be coded and recorded for gambling purposes by each and every bank in the US. Scary stuff.

As I've said from the beginning of the overblown WTO saga, the WTO "victory" will be ignored by the US Government. The US also claimes victory and will ignore the WTO decision no matter what it says. The good news is the US is now setup to lose it big time the next go round. The next plaintiff will know how to defeat the "moral" issue the US "won" the suit on. The next Country (re the UK) will have trading sanctions the US will respect. Antigua has no muscle in the trade sanctions department.....Scotty S
 

Chuck Sims

EOG Dedicated
#4
I hope it goes down in defeat of course. If it does pass, he seems such a weak bill with no teeth. One thing is for sure, the USA is just thumbing their nose at the WTO.
 

JC

EOG Veteran
#5
Scotty, please tell ud where it says in the decision that the US won the moral argument. Have you even read the decision?
 

JC

EOG Veteran
#7
Decided by tonight?

I don't think it has even been introduced yet. I don't see it on the Senate web site or Kyl's web site.
 
#8
Scotty,

I believe you are OFF BASE saying that ANTIGUA has NO MUSCLE. There are things I do know that ANTIGUA can do to FLEX their BICEPS if the United States IGNORES the WTO ruling...

It would be arrogant and naive for anyone to think that a country like ANTIGUA would just sit back and allow the US to BULLY them without a FIGHT...:nono

THE SHRINK
 
#9
Year after Year

Year after Year

The Republicans continue filling up their dockets with anti-gambling bills and trying to restrict our pass time pleasures that forums like this cater to.:hung
 
#10
JC, I was invited to hear Anthony Cabot discuss this amomg other gaming issues today at a luncheon. (He's a friend of mine from way back). He's probably the foremost LAS VEGAS athuority on gambling issues.

No I didn't read it because as I've said since this non issue got legs it's all nonsense. The next WTO case is where the sh.. hits the fan. I'll read that one though.

Verbatim from his Law Firm regarding the WTO ruling:
------------------------------
* "United States wins point four:
-United States carries its burden to show that the anti-gambling laws are necessary to protect the public morals."
* "Burden then shifts to Antigua to show reasonable alternatives."

Continuing:(again verbatim)

* "United Syates wins point five by default:
-Antigua failed to submit any evidence that the United States had any regulatory alternatives to prohibition.
-Why? Antigua failed to anticipate that the United States would involve the Public Morals exception."
* "Court never got the decisive issue:
-Could the United States then demonstrate that the regulatory alternatives will not work."
------------------------------
JC, the next one to take the US on will be prepared to challenge the public morals issue.

Mabey the reason Kyl doesn't have it on his web site for you
to see is he might try to back door it in the dead of night.

By the way I did read your decision and I have it in a binder. We discussed it today for the 27th time.....Scotty S
 
#13
Ari Gold said:
Was there anything regarding the Indian rights discussed at that luncheon you attended?
ARI, the Indians were completely shafted. They got no exception in this version. We all know they will fight it but the point is it will be after the fact. Of course if it goes down it's a moot point. KYL had to cut some exemptions from the bill to appease the anti-gambling forces.
 
#14
THE SHRINK said:
Scotty,

I believe you are OFF BASE saying that ANTIGUA has NO MUSCLE. There are things I do know that ANTIGUA can do to FLEX their BICEPS if the United States IGNORES the WTO ruling...

It would be arrogant and naive for anyone to think that a country like ANTIGUA would just sit back and allow the US to BULLY them without a FIGHT...:nono

THE SHRINK
I may be naive but I'm not arrogant.....Scotty
 
#16
Scotty S--have you gotten any indication that the UK will also bring this issue before the WTO?
What's the current status of the UK books taking US players? (I don't have one )
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#17
Scotty S said:
Sorry Shrink, the USA is going to ignore the decision, win/lose/right/wrong.
I gotta agree with you here. Antigua simply doesn't have enough economic clout to make the US reconsider their anti-gambling position.

But I am skeptical that the UK will take the US to the WTO. I think we'd need to see a shift in UK governance first (read: no more Blair and his butt-kissing) ... in which case, we're looking at nearly four more years before this is even entertained.
 

JC

EOG Veteran
#18
Tony Cabot may be a prominemt Vegas gambling lawyer, but he is not a trade lawyer and he is plain wrong on the WTO Appellate decision.

The US did not win on the morals clause. It's called Article XIV and it is a two pronged test. While the appellate body found that the US does have a right to have these laws to protect public morals, the existence of the IHA alone means that they can not claim a moral exemption. As long as they offer remote gambling in the US, they can not fall back on Article XIV.

Read the decision, the Appellate Body ordered the US to bring the Wire Act, the Illegal Gaming Business Act, and the Wire Act into compliance with the GATS.

If the Kyl bill is passed as you describe it, it only makes Antigua's WTO case stronger. If they bless online casino games within states, then the US can hardly claim a moral aversion to remote gambling.

The US can do one of two things to comply with the WTO decision. Allow Antiguan operators free access to the US markets or eliminate all remote gambling in the US, something I don't think they will do.

You can sit here, having not read the decision and make blanket statements that the US will do what it wants to do, and that may happen. I will say Antigua has some options in its arsenal beyond trade sanctions which I will not mention here for strategic reasons.

As far as bringing another case, I don't believe the UK can act alone in the WTO, only as part of the EU. I know in the Antigua case the EU was one of the parties that filed amicus briefs with Antigua at both the lower panel and appellate level.

I will tell you who may bring another case and that is Antigua. All of the hard legal work is done. It is without argument that:

1. The US has made commitments
2. Article XVI applies
3. The US does have measures in place that interfere with Antigua's access (Something they actually tried to deny.)

Which leaves Article XIV, the morals exemption. Any argument purely on Article XIV would be a very factual argument. The appellate body gave Antigua a beautiful road map how to win this case grand slam style the second time around. All of those issues above that the US vigorously opposed the first time are now settled WTO law.

All that would be left for the US to argue is their morals and they would fail miserably. Everyday Antigua's case only gets stronger. In any second pass Antigua would also vigorously spell out every state law that was summarily rejected for not being argued forcefully enough the first time. Not that they need to argue the state stuff because of some federal principle that federal trumps state, but just for sport.

Antigua presented plenty of alternatives to an outright ban. Read the briefs. Why the Appellate Body chose to act like they were not there is beyond me.

Bottom line is you can't claim a moral aversion to an activity when your domestic providers offer the same activity. And by activity I mean remote gambling, that's what the panel made it. Not sports, or poker, or casino, or horses, just remote gambling, they consider it all the same.

As to Kyl, yes I've seen the scum try to amend his garbage to must pass bills, but he has always had a bill out there in the first place. And the Indians have a lot of pull, without their exemption it may not carry. Plus I think a lot of people are tired of Kyls's routine already.

But we'll see. Like I said it only makes Antigua's case stronger if it passes as you described it.
 
#20
APRIL 1, 2006: This is the date that the WTO gave the US as a deadline to comply with their ruling. My question is...What happen if the US does not comply?
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#22
Whodatman said:
APRIL 1, 2006: This is the date that the WTO gave the US as a deadline to comply with their ruling. My question is...What happen if the US does not comply?
The WTO can implement two punitive measures: impart a fine on the US and/or give Antigua permission to impose trade sanctions.
 
#23
xpanda said:
The WTO can implement two punitive measures: impart a fine on the US and/or give Antigua permission to impose trade sanctions.
If a fine is imparted on the US--I wonder does it have big teeth (IOW) will it make the US go "ouch"? Then would be the time for 60 Minutes to do a show to let the American people see that their tax dollars were spent to pay a fine because they would not comply with THIS ruling.

As far what Antigua has that the US wants (other than the gambling)-I don't have any idea. JC says above that he does !
 

Everfresh

EOG Enthusiast
#24
U.S. Sen. Jon. Kyl's efforts to amend an appropriations bill to include language prohibiting Internet gambling in the United States have failed. The amendment was defeated in the Senate this morning after a night of debate and political gamesmanship. Democratic leaders invoked a point of order on the amendment, arguing that it should be placed on a bill in the Banking and Finance committee and not an appropriations bill. The point of order was passed by majority vote, essentially killing Kyl's amendment.

:+signs99-





 
X

xpanda

Guest
#26
Whodatman said:
If a fine is imparted on the US--I wonder does it have big teeth (IOW) will it make the US go "ouch"? Then would be the time for 60 Minutes to do a show to let the American people see that their tax dollars were spent to pay a fine because they would not comply with THIS ruling.

As far what Antigua has that the US wants (other than the gambling)-I don't have any idea. JC says above that he does !
If the US is willing to ignore this ruling by the WTO - which I believe they will - then they will be just as willing to ignore the fine.

Plus - and I can't help but saying this because it's relevant here - this is an administration that doesn't give a SHIT what an international body tells them to do or not do. Remember that waged a WAR without UN approval. Hard to imagine that they would have more respect for the WTO than they would the UN.

Historically, when the US has failed to comply with a WTO ruling, the WTO allowed other nations to impose trade sanctions of sorts. If the affected nation is powerful enough, this might get the US's attention (like when the WTO allowed the EC to impose steel tariffs when the US failed to repeal the Byrd Amendment.) Antigua doesn't have any kind of industry that - via the WTO - they can damage the US with.

Jay is implying that Antigua has something up their sleeve, but I doubt it's via the WTO.
 
#27
Democrats block language again for what the Republicans try to use to get gambling off shore banned on their bills.:+thumbs-2


The life blood of this website is always under attack from Republicans and it's amazing some posters support them here of all places. Amazing!:doh1
 
#28
US Senate turns aside Web gambling ban for now
Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:56 AM ET



WASHINGTON, Sept 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Thursday turned aside an attempt to restrict Internet gambling in a procedural move, but Sen. Jon Kyl vowed he would try again and said he expected the legislation would become law eventually.

The Arizona Republican tried to attach language restricting Internet gambling to an annual spending bill that must be passed this year, but an unnamed Democrat objected to attaching an unrelated matter to the spending measure under consideration.

Kyl said his legislation would require banks and credit card companies to block payments to online Internet gambling sites. He said some firms were already voluntarily blocking money transfers.

"We will proceed with this, it will become law at some point at some time," the Arizona Republican said on the Senate floor. "There should be no reason why we can't move forward on this."

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, said that a member of her party had objected to attaching Kyl's language to the spending bill but she was not sure who. Kyl urged the lawmaker to come forward so the concerns could be addressed.

The U.S. Justice Department has said the laws that prohibit interstate gambling apply to the Internet. But Americans have turned to offshore gambling Internet sites as an alternative.

The Senate and U.S. House of Representatives have passed similar legislation in the past but have been unable to reach agreement on a single, identical bill, Kyl said.

Shares of online gambling sites in Britain moved higher on Thursday in anticipation of the Senate action. Partygaming Plc <PRTY.L> moved up 5 percent to 105 pence while Sportingbet.com Plc <SBT.L> moved up 11.3 percent to 321 pence on London trading.
 
#29
xpanda said:
If the US is willing to ignore this ruling by the WTO - which I believe they will - then they will be just as willing to ignore the fine.

Plus - and I can't help but saying this because it's relevant here - this is an administration that doesn't give a SHIT what an international body tells them to do or not do. Remember that waged a WAR without UN approval. Hard to imagine that they would have more respect for the WTO than they would the UN.

Historically, when the US has failed to comply with a WTO ruling, the WTO allowed other nations to impose trade sanctions of sorts. If the affected nation is powerful enough, this might get the US's attention (like when the WTO allowed the EC to impose steel tariffs when the US failed to repeal the Byrd Amendment.) Antigua doesn't have any kind of industry that - via the WTO - they can damage the US with.

Jay is implying that Antigua has something up their sleeve, but I doubt it's via the WTO.
If I read this correctly and the US refuses to pay the fine imposed by the WTO---why would the WTO allow the US to remain in the organization? OR does the US simply not care even if they are in the organization anyway; as it means nothing to our trade with other countries? If that is the case, than the WTO ruling will be just about for nothing. As for Kyl--I'm wondering if his "elavator goes to the top floor".
 
#30
--------------------------------------------
U.S. Sen. Jon. Kyl's efforts to amend an appropriations bill to include language prohibiting Internet gambling in the United States have failed. The amendment was defeated in the Senate this morning after a night of debate and political gamesmanship. Democratic leaders invoked a point of order on the amendment, arguing that it should be placed on a bill in the Banking and Finance committee and not an appropriations bill. The point of order was passed by majority vote, essentially killing Kyl's amendment.
-------------------------------------------

Thanks Everfresh. I wish I could nail winners like I nailed this.....Scotty
 
#31
WHODATMAN, I have no tangible info that I would risk money on. The UK is the choice of people, myself included, who follow this very closely and have a financial interest in the outcome.

Some UK bms accept US players and some refuse them...Scotty
 
X

xpanda

Guest
#32
Whodatman said:
If I read this correctly and the US refuses to pay the fine imposed by the WTO---why would the WTO allow the US to remain in the organization? OR does the US simply not care even if they are in the organization anyway; as it means nothing to our trade with other countries? If that is the case, than the WTO ruling will be just about for nothing.
What you are asking is a broader political problem with international organisations. At the end of the day, most nations use them for self-interest ... the US has by far the most complaints of any nation (60 complaints filed vs. the next highest, which is the entirety of the European Community with 47 complaints) so obviously have a vested interest in staying in the WTO.

If the US doesn't comply, I suppose the rest of the countries could make a move to give the US the boot. But let's face it, any international organisation without the US won't have the backing of the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. Would be a slow death, really.

I mean, why didn't the UN give the US the boot when they were clearly in violation of the terms of the Security Council ... and in this case we're talking about WAR not just a trade disagreement. The answer is because they can't in realistic terms. Same goes for the WTO. The WTO needs Uncle Sam more than Uncle Sam needs the WTO. The perils of a world with only one superpower.

Both Buzz Daly and I have written back-to-back articles on this very issue of (predicted) US non-compliance with the WTO decision ..

http://www.eog.com/news/index.aspx?id=651

http://www.eog.com/news/index.aspx?id=658
 
Top