Repeal- Cannabis Act 2015

  • The Cannabis Act was enacted in April of 2015. Due to significant unpopularity I propose that this act (included below) is formally repealed.

    Debate starts now and ends at 19:30BST (GMT+1) on Wednesday 8th June 2016 before final voting begins for 72 hours and ends at 19:30BST (GMT +1) on Saturday 11th June 2016

    European Cannabis Act

    Authored by Ralph Jaevons, Acwellan Devoy, John Walters

    Article I
    Section I: Purpose and Definitions.

    1. This Act legalizes cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, for recreational and medical use, throughout all member states of the European Union.
    2. This Act replaces expensive and ineffective prohibition, seeking to improve quality of life while also raising revenue and reducing crime for member states and their citizens.
    3. Definitions:
    4. Cannabis: a preparation of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a recreational drug and/or as medicine.
    5. Dispensary: a licensed store or clinic where cannabis is sold for personal consumption.
    6. Grow: A licensed facility where cannabis is grown for commerical use, such as, but not limited to, supplying dispensaries.
    7. National Possession Age: The minimum age, equivalent to national age of majority, a person must be in order to legally acquire, possess, transport, use, and/or sell cannabis.
    8. Hash Oil: A resin mix of cannabinoids obtained from the cannabis plant via solvent extraction.
    9. THC: Tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.
    10. Cannabis Authority: Any level of government or formal body with the power to regulate cannabis. Includes, but is not limited to, national governments, local governments, committees, and cannabis-specific regulatory agencies.Article II
      Section I: Regulations for Personal Use
    11. Adults over the National Possession Age in their nation of residence may legally possess cannabis for their own personal use.
    12. A minimum of 1 gram must be permitted by national governments, a maximum at their own discretion.
    13. Adults over the National Posssession Age in their nation of residence may grow cannabis plants on private property, and similarly possess, transport, and/or use all the marijuana from the plants they grow.
    14. National and local laws must permit the growing of a minimum of 6 plants, at least 3 of which can be mature, on private property, a maximum at cannabis authority discretion.
    15. Cannabis grown for personal use may not be sold or resold.
      Hash oil may not be extracted for personal use.
    16. Up to 30 grams of cannabis per transaction may be given as a gift to any other adult over the National Possession Age in their nation of residence, across the European Union.
    17. National and local laws regarding public consumption of other drugs, including but not limited to alcohol and tobacco, shall be adapted to include the consumption of cannabis, where applicable.
    18. Similarly, driving under the influence of cannabis should be equated to local and national laws regarding driving under the influence of alcohol, where applicable. This act does not limit cannabis authorities from enacting their own policies in these particular areas, so long as the possession of cannabis for personal use in private remains legal.Section II: Regulations for Commercial Use
    19. Adults over the National Possession Age in their nation of residence may operate cannabis-related businesses, including but not limited to, dispensaries, paraphenalia, and grow operations.
    20. Cannabis authorities may impose residency restrictions in their respective municipalities for starting, owning, and/or investing in cannabis-related businesses.
    21. Cannabis-related businesses may only operate with a proper license, granted by cannabis authorities. The granting of this license shall be determined by factors in line with those of similar industries. These include, but are not limited to, the presence of a viable business plan, secure physical premises meeting local zoning codes, and standard health and safety regulations.
    22. Cannabis authorities may regulate how many licenses may be awarded in their respective municipalities.
    23. A license to operate a cannabis-related business may be revoked should the business fail to meet the standards set by cannabis authorities.
    24. The rate of taxation, and its collection, regarding cannabis-related businesses and/or transactions, shall be the responsibility of cannabis authorities.
    25. Cannabis-related businesses may extract hash oil in accordance with national and/or local zoning and safety regulations.
      Hash oil may be used in the production of edible marijuana products. Cannabis authorities may regulate what types of edible products are allowed and how much THC they may contain.
      Edible marijuana products must be manufactured in child-proof packaging and be clearly distinguishable from non-marijuana products.
    26. Cannabis authorities may require edible product manufacturers to submit samples for routine testing, ensure uniform batch dosages, and regulate package quantity limits.Section III: Regulations for Medical Use
    27. Cannabis may be prescribed by licensed doctors or physicians to treat medical conditions or symptoms of medical conditions.
    28. Cannabis authorities may require a separate ID system for users of medical cannabis.
    29. Cannabis authorities may permit separate dosage and/or quantity regulations for medical cannabis products.
    30. Dispensaries that carry recreational cannabis products must also carry medical cannabis products.Article III
      Section I: Cannabis in Public
    31. Cannabis authorities may regulate whether cannabis may be consumed in public, on public transportation, and/or on public property, and under what conditions.
    32. Cannabis products being transported must be sealed or otherwise unopened, when applicable.
    33. Private businesses and/or landowners are not obligated to allow recreational cannabis use and/or possession on their premises.
    34. Private businesses and/or landowners are obligated, within reason, to allow medical cannabis use and/or possession on their premises, in accordance with a user?s valid prescription and ID.Article IV
      Section I: Enforcement
    35. Once passed, the European Cannabis Act shall take effect on April 20th, 2015.
    36. Member states shall have 6 months to harmonize their existing drug laws with this Act, to setup regulatory bodies, and to setup licensing.
    37. Regardless of existing drug laws, legalization and decriminalization of cannabis shall take effect on April 20th, 2015.
    38. Misuse or refusal to follow this Act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.Debate starts NOW and ends 20th MARCH 1200 GMT
      Voting on Amendments ends 22nd MARCH 1200 GMT
      Voting on the final bill ens 26th MARCH 1500 GMT

  • "Mr Speaker, this Repeal was proposed in exactly the same form not a long time ago and therefore I propose it be rendered invalid. I would simply say to the Davishirian Councillor to get over it."

    Alexander Strathclyde, Councillor on Behalf of His Imperial Majesty

  • "As representative of the People of Sitanova to the European Council, I wish to express our full support for the proposal made by the United Kingdom of Davishire and Bucks to repeal the European Cannabis Act. As well, Sitanova propose that the use of this(Cannabis) should be decided by each government".

    Amalia Coppola, European Councillor of the Federation of the Democratic Republic of Sitanova

  • "On the behalf of the Federal Council of Golfia, I would also like to express our full support for Davishire's proposal to repeal the ineffective and inflexible European Cannabis Act. Quite frankly, it's up to every government to decide if one's allowed to stuff him/herself with that kind of crap or not".

    Dr. Adam Chowjnicki, European Councillor of the Apostolic Empire of Golfia

  • Admin

    "My predecessor, Peter Montfort, spoke extensively on this issue on both occasions when it was brought before the Council. His words spoke for Angleter then, and they shall speak for Angleter now. This Act remains a shameless reach into the member-states' internal affairs. It remains a case of micromanagement, which ventures well into the realm of what should be left to individual nations. There remains no remotely convincing cross-border argument for this Act. The arguments for it remain red herrings, dreamt up in order to ram through this bizarre, arbitrary piece of legislation, and based around the central principle that legalising cannabis will be good for us. But it remains the case that we can and should be able to decide that for ourselves. Europolis should not mandate that the member states of this union follow a certain policy regarding cannabis, or meat, or alcohol, or dairy, or coca leaf. Once again, we support this repeal, and have every hope that it passes."

    Cllr. Gisela Stuart

  • "It's extremely sad, I think, that those nations who always cry "democracy" are now attempting to undermine a decision made democratically in this European Council. The original Act passed and was implemented without many issues from most member states, except notably Davishire, who has been behaving like this Act is a matter of life and death. Then, a repeal was proposed, which failed. Why can these complaining, whining Councillors we have seen in this Chamber today, some of which were not there and I am sure have not read in full the arguments in favour of cannabis regulation (safer streets, healthier people, less black market activity, a minimal if not positive impact on public health) not just accept a democratic decision made by this Chamber? Inimicus accepted the Ocean Protection Act when it passed, even though we were vehemently opposed to it. This is the way of the world in a democratic, trans-national insitution. Just deal with it.

    "And now, only by the lack of active voices in Europe, this shameful repeal might pass. I think, Mr Speaker, this is a disgrace. Not only is it an extremely low move by the Davishirian Councillor, but it is also a move that completely undermines our democratic institution, which has twice, twice!! decided this Act is a sound idea. Moreover, I am of the opinion this shameful repeal is merely seeking the exploitation of the current levels of inactivity, notably by pro-cannabis nations. What a disgrace. What. A. Disgrace."

    Alexander Strathclyde

  • Admin

    "Who mentioned democracy? Only, I think, Cllr. Strathclyde. Who, for that matter, is complaining and whining? Only, I think, Cllr. Strathclyde. This repeal is perfectly legitimate, and just as the Council may have passed it, and voted against its repeal last time out, it may vote for its repeal on this occasion. Once again, it's up to us. Democracy, while we are on the subject, is not about shutting up and not dissenting once something's passed and survived its first repeal effort."

    "I've read the arguments for legalised cannabis. It is remarkable, though, that though the same arguments are surely, in broad strokes, also applicable to legalising other products - other drugs, alcohol, tobacco, coca leaf, meat, dairy, and so on - none of the Councillors so convinced by those arguments have thought to follow their own logic and introduce legislation mandating that we all legalise those products. It's almost as if those arguments don't actually matter to them. They're only trotted out to justify mandatory legalised cannabis. Why cannabis? Perhaps because it's special to them - but that's not an argument. Or perhaps it's because once you use the Council to foist upon the entire region some minor matter of drug law, you can justify using it for anything. There's no limit! From banning Comic Sans to banning nuclear weapons, there's no limit! Everything can be decided for our countries by a 55% majority of this Chamber, half of whose members aren't elected, and whose members all have an equal vote despite representing electorates with wildly differing sizes. That's supposed to be democracy in action, and we're all supposed to 'just deal with it'."

    "Well, I'll tell you there are 497 MPs back in New Birmingham. They're all, I'm sure, fully apprised of the debate about legalising cannabis. They're all elected and they each represent roughly the same number of people, for that matter. As there is still no good reason why this issue must be dealt with at European level, let's repeal this Act and let those MPs, and their counterparts in legislatures and governments across the region, decide what's best for their own countries."

  • "I cannot follow Mrs Stuart's slander on European democracy. As the only directly elected body in Europolis, we voted to legalise cannabis, and to keep it legalised, defeating the exact same repeal that we are now seeing in a revamped form. Not only have all European nations just about created the infrastructure, agencies, political positions, enforcement officers, and countless other aspects to do with cannabis legalisation - making this repeal costly and placing a very negative attitude around the European Council - but European nations decided by majority, twice, that this is the sure course which we ought to take.

    "Now Cllr Stuart makes an interesting point. Why should we "shut up" everyone who seeks to reintroduce a piece of legislation to this Council? If she is so keen on revisiting passed Acts, I can give her the assurance that I will be reintroducing this Cannabis Act, one of the most well-written, detailed, well-structured, benevolent, and widely discussed and debated Bills this Council has ever seen, a great, great many times if this rather whiney Repeal passes.

    "Cllr Stuart makes a caricature of cannabis legalisation by comparing it to dairy, alcohol, and meat. Products which are widely legalised - as commons sense prescribes - across the region. The thing is about cannabis, Cllr Stuart, and not about milk, tobacco, or alcohol, that there is a widespread black market that deals in cannabis. By legalising this relatively harmless substance, which has been proven to help cure various illnesses and whose supposedly harmful capacities are nothing compared to tobacco and alcohol, we are completely eliminating the often genuinely harmful varieties of cannabis available on the black market, Moreover, by taxing cannabis sales, national governments now make a pretty penny on cannabis revenues. It really is win-win.

    "And this Council shared this opinion, and shared it again when the repeal was first proposed. But we all know the struggle the Davishirian government went through in order to find loopholes in the Act. Now the Angleteric Councillor talks about sovereignity, a topic she always speaks passionately about, But if it was up to her, the European Union would get absolutely nothing done because her 497 friends in the Angleteric capital would be best suited to decide everything. No, I say this is a cross-border issue, like crime and especially organised crime always has been, and needs to be dealt with at a European level."

    Alexander Strathclyde

  • "Mr. Strathclyde, I understand your position, but also should be taken into account that in certain countries like Sitanova, the use of cannabis is rejected by a large majority of citizens. By allowing this law continue in effect, we are being unfair. Of course in other countries in the region the case is opposite, but that is why I would like to highlight mentioned by Mrs. Sturart, this should be a matter of state and not regional. My serious proposition that each government to decide for itself the use of cannabis or not. I also understand that some of us here are new and were not present when this law was passed, but we have the right to comment on an issue that affects somehow our countries, if not what would be the purpose of the European Council?

    Secondly, you say that this law is in favor of the regulation of cannabis, and this favors the reduction of crime, healthier people and less black market activity, a minimal if not positive impact on public health. But I can give you some arguments why it should not legalize:

    1.Some people falsely thinks Cannabis smoking does not affect health. According to studies published by the National Institute of Drug Abuse US, including the effects of consuming marijuana they are: distorted perception of reality; loss of memory and learning ability; motor incoordination; disorientation; inability to think clearly, react and solve problems; loss of cognitive abilities, which may be permanent; anxiety attacks, paranoia, panic; phobias, hallucinations; increased heart rate and low pressure, which increases four times the risk of heart attack; low immune system; respiratory problems; cough; pulmonary congestion and cancer, because it contains more carcinogens than snuff.

    2..It would affect seriously devote to the economy-that drug cultivation, something that will ruin the health and life of the population lands that could be devoted to food crops and / or medicinal.

    3Legalizing marijuana would not stop the violence; only serve to enrich a few landowners who are already rubbing their hands thinking of the profits obtained.

    4.a lot people today do not dare to try marijuana is prohibited because it would if it were legal. Soon not only adults, but young people, adolescents and even children, would be consuming, starting their sad way of addiction and destruction.

    5. although it is prohibited in the corners motorists sell cigars snuff, and if cigars are sold also is marijuana. Now not only have to take care of drunks who drive, also the 'marijuaners'! And when road accidents will increase, the authorities installed 'marijuanimeters' next to the 'breathalyzers?'.

    6. although it is prohibited in the corners motorists are sold cigars snuff, cigars are also sold marijuana. Now not only have to take care of drunks who drive, also the 'marihuanos'! And when road accidents will increase, the authorities installed 'marihuanímetros' next to the 'breathalyzers?'.

    7. The statistics prove that an impressive percentage of crimes are committed under the influence of drugs, especially marijuana. The prisons are full of criminals who had committed no illegal if they had not been drugged.

    8.Promotting marijuana is promoting a false start. People take drugs to evade reality because it lives a great existential void. But the solution is not to throw people an escape that will leave serious consequences, but to help make sense of their existence. And that does not need marijuana, needs God.

    9.The interested in legalizing marijuana pose as very 'progressive' and a large 'breakthrough' imitate other countries that have legalized. But encouraging people to drogue, alter your consciousness, become addicted, lose the compass, peace, health and sense of its existence, does nothing to improve society, on the contrary, promotes physical deterioration, mental and spiritual. Do we want that for our country, for our home?

    Thank you for your arttention"

    Amalia Coppola, European Councillor of the Federation of the Democratic Republic of Sitanova

  • Stave Mannion, former Davishirian Prime Minister, stood in for Nicola Heaven who had taken a short term leave of absence to deal with an illness.

    "Cllr Strathclyde, I can see you are very... passionate about this piece of legislation which is understandable considering it was at least presented by a former Inimician councillor.

    I would like to point out to the councillor that this repeal would not necessarily make cannabis illegal in all member states. Some nations have always had and will I am sure continue to allow the possession and use of cannabis for whatever uses they see fit within their own state. The honourable member from Angleter is right, this should not be a matter for regional legislation but instead it should be a matter for the elected parliaments of our own soveriegn nations to decide what is best.

    This parliament is not elected, indeed I myself am not elected, my colleague Nicola Heaven is not elected and many other members of this chamber are not elected. Why is it that us here as unelected individuals can sit here and tell parliaments who are elected by the people what to do? I can fully understand that with significant issues, issues of life and dearth such as with the Capital Punishment Act, matters of serious international importance such as protection of the oceans through the Ocean Protection act are areas where it is important for us to work together. Issues such as the legalisation of a drug that encourages drug use and anti social behaviour should not be one of those issues.

    Instead this organisation has decided that it will, and over such a minor issue such as Cannabis Legalisation, tell everyone in Europe what is best for them. The Davishirian Parliament had it's own reasons for prohibiting cannabis, other member states had their own reasons for permitting it. Ultimately it is our own national parliament which understand our own nation states rather than this diluted half democracy that is the European Council.

    It is of vital importance that the matter of national sovereignty and national dignity are protected at all costs and removing this act is one part of that plan.

    Acting Councillor Sir Steve Mannion CEDM

  • "Again, Sir Steve does not seem to get the entire point of the Cannabis Act. Black markets are, whether we like it or not, beyond national governments' control. Crime is a cross-border issue, and therefore it has very little effect for, say, Inimicus, to keep cannabis legalised - and to enjoy the countless benefits that cannabis legalisation brings; I have mentioned before, and will mention them again: improved public health, the elimination of 'dirty' cannabis, the nullification of drug dealers, and some hefty tax revenue for the government - but for Angleter to re-criminalise the harmless drug. I do not need to explain to you, Councillors, the issues that would lead to. Drugs tourism to the southeast of Inimicus, an already relatively deprived area of my country; strained relationships between our two national governments, which have already seen stress after the assassination of two Inimician cardinals and the current refugee crisis. So on, so forth, and for every nation a similar case would ensue.

    "It seems Sir Steve is extremely unhappy about trans-national co-operation of the kind we have seen in this Union. If every decision made at a European level, Sir Steve, undermines national democracy, as you imply, then why bother with the European Union at all? If this is the general sentiment nowadays, one of "oh we can't possibly improve our people's lives if that means decisions at non-national level" then why be a part of Europe? If Davishire is so unhappy about the EU, please leave and let the rest of us get on. Please walk out so we can progress in a fair way to increase the properity of us all."

    Alexander Strathclyde

  • I do not think it is Davishire which has a problem with Europe. You clearly do not like the system we currently have within the European Union, where councillors propose legislation and it is debated before voting, which is due to start very soon. Every councillor has a right to debate these issues and I believed that enough time has passed for us to reconsider the made by this body some months ago. And before you talk about Davishire leaving the union I would like to point the honourable member back to his own nation. It is clear that some people within your own system of government are happy to leave the union over this absurd matter, if that is the case and an "Inimexit" takes place it is clear that your own nation holds no respect for this organisation.

    As I have said, it is perfectly rightfor this organisation to step into the breach , but only when there is a matter of regional importance, this I personally do not feel is a matter of regional importance. If this repeal passes, I would like to point out to the honourable member that your nation does not have to criminalise cannabis possession or use and can continue down the path to legalisation. It is the choice of your own government on that.

  • Admin

    Move for an extension of debate

  • In the absence of the speaker I, as proposer, shall extend the debate for a further 48 hours ending at 19:30BST on Friday 10th June 2016 and it may be open to further extension as necessary.

  • @Inimicus

    "You know what, I've heard enough of this nonsensical BS! Mr Strathclyde, you're such a..."

    European Councillor of the Apostolic Empire of Golfia

  • I would like to advise the honourable member that this chamber is not a place for personal insults!

  • @Davishire @Sitanova @Golfia

    "Sir Steve and Mrs Coppola quite happily ignore the facts why Cannabis legalisation can only work on a cross-border basis. But as they said, they have the right to do so...

    "But I am quite happy to address the points our colleague from Sitanova raises, and I apologise for not doing so earlier:

    1. It has been proven time and again, including in Inimicus, that cannabis legalisation drives down usage. We take away the "exciting" tension around consuming an illegal drug, and figures in Inimicus and I am sure in many other countries back this up.

    2. I have yet to see any massive cannabis fields popping up anywhere. A wild claim not backed up by any evidence.

    3. Legalising cannabis takes away a vital strain of organised crime. It does stop violence, and evidentially so. Moreover, saying this would "only benefit a few landowners" is a folly. Usage is driven down, as I already said.

    4. I can say from rather .... personal experience.... that trying cannabis does not lead to addiction. I have had the substance myself twice since legalisation, and I do not think I have turned into a junk. Cannabis is in essence a scientifically-proven non-addictive substance.

    5/6. As cannabis usage is driven down in the case of legalistion, stoned drivers are not as big an issue as you pose it to be. Moreover, I can tell you from statistics in Inimicus, no accidents have been caused by high drivers, because cannabis has a relaxing effect rather than an aggravating one, and you don't get the urge to drive.

    7. I refer the honourable lady to the fact usage is driven down by legalisation.

    8. We're not promoting cannabis at all. Legal tobacco does not mean promoting tobacco. Moreover, Inimicus as a formally anti-theist state does not need god.

    9. Have all our countries degraded into mentally and spiritually deteriorated hellholes? I should think not.

    "I also note the... ahem... extremely useful contribution made by Dr Chowjnicki. Don't worry, Doctor. I have been called worse things by better people than you."

    Alexander Strathclyde

  • @Davishire

    "I do apologise Sir Mannion for my seemingly rude bahvior, but some things that are obvious must be mentioned"

  • @Inimicus

    The Doctor's response towards Mr. Strathclyde's tasteless insult

    "and quite frankly, what amazes me and so many other MPs in this magnificent chamber, ladies and gentleman, is that Mr. Strathclyde is proving to us what a "sandlåda" mentality he's still possessing by a) calling a fellow MP for a degenerate and b ) making such a big fuss about a democratically sound and legal repealment that frankly should have been over by now. Yet, Mr. Strathclyde is still trying to make himself and his beloved nation of Inmicus helpless victims by calling us names, "demanding" the nation of Davishire to leave the EU for ridiculous reasons and everything else which is quite absurd. Lastly, Mr. Strathclyde is promoting full-on cultural marxism and PK-media tactics through this act which forces nations to accept something that quite frankly not everyone wants to this kind of crap or not. In Golfia, we're quite liberal about cannabis, allowing legal consumption and regulated commercial produce thanks to one mandatory referenda in which the citizens of Golfia were the ultimate deciding force. Which is why I still thank the Lord til' this day that we have a direct democracy within our representative democratic framework. However, my dear friend and fellow MP Mrs. Copola comes from a nation quite conservative regarding this issue and we should all respect their government's stance and decisions based on morality, customs and traditions instead of one silly act such as this and one NOTSO helpless nation's needs and demands. Otherwise, we're promoting a sick, despicable murderous ideology such as Communism which has literally erdicated entire nations and left millions upon millions of innocent men, women and children dead whilst depriving them our most basic yet highly important civil and political rights. What we should be discussing and having a debate on is more important issues such as the ongoing refugee crisis and Islamism's conquest of Europe, than "issues" that are more suitable in a "sandlåda" environment!"

    European Councillor of the Apostolic Empire of Golfia

  • Admin

    "It is a slur to claim that I would have the EU do nothing. If we wanted that, we wouldn't be in it. But my vision of the EU is one that deals with the real cross-border affairs; real matters of international law. I agree that crime is a cross-border affair, but I have a different view of what should and should not be dealt with at European level. What about matters of extradition; or the rights of those arrested for a crime in a foreign country; or the law of the seas and the skies? I'd say those are the biggest, most patently cross-border issues pertaining to crime. And yet when I proposed a discussion on that very issue of legal jurisdiction, the countries that are so eager to demand we all harmonise our laws relating to a single specific drug were nowhere to be seen! We've got our priorities the wrong way round."

    "Or we would have, if Cllr. Strathclyde actually followed through with his logic. Why does he assume that cannabis had such a massive, region-wide black market because in some member-states it was illegal; but not products, like meat, alcohol, or dairy, which are either banned or heavily restricted in some other member-states? I am unaware of many countries, other than Davishire, having to significantly change their legislation when this Act passed last year. Compared to more potent, more expensive, and more commonly illegal narcotics, I simply cannot imagine cannabis being so lucrative and so vital to organised crime in this region that it would demand a response from Europolis. It certainly wouldn't demand such a response before heroin, or cocaine, or meth. But oddly enough, not only did the supporters of this Act decided to deal with cannabis first, but they've also failed to come up with any proposal for any common regional policy regarding those harder drugs. Drop the act."

    "And if it's 'drugs tourism' that worries Cllr. Strathclyde, then there's an incredibly long list of laws he'll want us to have to harmonise, in order that such 'tourism' be stamped out. Pretty much all substance laws, obviously; but also marriage laws; divorce laws; abortion laws; religious freedom laws; cosmetic surgery laws; gun laws; pornography laws; prostitution laws. I suppose we'd probably need a common immigration policy, too, if we want to stop the current crisis damaging our relations. But again, even the most activist Councillors in Europolis have stopped short of proposing the vast majority of those things. So again, drop the act."

    "This has never been about tackling 'drugs tourism', or organised crime, or whatever theoretically cross-border issue the supporters of this Act want to use as a fig leaf this time. It's time to drop the act, and, yes, drop this Act."

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.