[pp.int.general] Political Party X (was: Uppsala Declaration)
aiarakoa at yahoo.es
Tue Jul 1 05:04:40 CEST 2008
---- Mensaje original ----
De: Mårten Fjällström <marten.fjallstrom at piratpartiet.se>
Enviado: martes, 1 de julio, 2008 3:54:14
> If you do not want to use it, fine.
I couldn't even if I want to -that I don't want to- because the EP strategy is against PIRATA's Statute.
By the way, what are you telling me? That it's the PPI platform, whatever we in PIRATA -or in Partia Piratow, or in Parti Pirate ... or even in the attending parties, when they know the contents of the declaration- accept it or not? Also, how many pirate parties have already signed this declaration? I mean, not the people who physically attended to Uppsala, but the very parties, after having studied the declaration contents ... how many have given their support to this text? Only Piratpartiet? or anyone else?
> Max covered the procedural questions well. If there is more questions as to how the document was produced, I will be
> glad to answer them. The important thing is that no matter what I called the document, and no matter how I phrased
> things when I was tired silly, it is still a non-binding starting point that you are free to use, or not use.
> In general, I think documents has a tendency not to get finished unless you press the matter, therefore I am glad that
> we finished the Uppsala Declaration. Of course we can make further documents and make up fancy names for them
> too. I prefer to have a number of finished documents, and let later versions replace older ones, rather then having a
> number of unfinished documents.
> we did get quite some media attention with the conference, at least in swedish media. This morning almost all
> newspapers ran some version of news agency story this morning about 1) that Piratpartiet had had a conference in
> Uppsala with "like-minded parties" and was going to run for EP 2009 and 2) that Piratpartiets chances has increased
> due to the public resitance against the "FRA law" (the general wiretapping law) and Piratpartiets role in getting that
> resistance going. It is easier to get media attention if you have something to show (be it a roof, be it a chair)
So, during 5 months the Pirate Manifesto's development was blocked because of lack of participation of pirate parties, and now you claim for something to show. Do you want something to show? I know wonderful books already in the public domain. Do you want something pirate to show? Then elaborate it more, as Anton commented; account with the parties -don't know if any of the six pirate parties attending Uppsala has signed the document, and I don't know if each pirate party's members have approved that signature; furthermore, I don't know if you care about it, as you only wanted something to show-.
And you lie when you say it's a non-binding starting point. Come on, Marten: if you appear to the media and say: "this is PPI's platform", people will automatically think that it's true. Official statements are 100 % binding, and you have made one in the name of PPI, regardless of how many PPI members agreed with it; you don't care if Partia Piratow, Parti Pirate or PIRATA reject or accept it; you don't care if Piraatti Puolue or the rest of the pirate parties attendants to Uppsala -I talk about the parties, not about the concrete individuals attending there- actually accept and approve that declaration, or not. You simply wanted a declaration to show to the press and you got it, whatever it would take.
It was the opposite from a gentle, team-making movement, Marten. And I repeat, how many pirate parties have already signed this declaration?
> Regarding the parliamentary group
> (wikipedia: "Groups get money and seats on Committees which Independent members do not get")
Oh, money... you should have started from there ...
... then, I was wrong when I
stated that -according to 2006 Piratpartiet Valmanifest- giving support
in non-core issues to a traditional group in exchange of that group not
granting support to our core issues was surrendering for nothing. Now I
understand: it's surrendering for money ... and how much money, if I
may ask? I know that funds are important for political parties, but
consider that if we nail some seats at the European Parliament, it
would have been without such funds -thus, we would be able to at least
hold those seats five years later without such funds- so ... how much,
in Euros, do you value our ideological independence and neutrality?
> unless we get enough seats we can not form a group of our own. The conference concluded that the prospect of us
> forming a group of our own after the election in 2009 is not very realistic.
We knew that long time ago -19/5 or 20/6, it's anyway too hard nowadays-, cannot believe that you needed an international conference to find it out.
> There is of course the option of staying independent within the parliament, which is a rather poor choice if we want >to affect any change at all.
That's a lie:
- MPs are in close contact with each other, so daily dealing is still possible
- All MPs participate in final votings -committees develop drafts, but those drafts are finally voted in the Parliament sessions-, so depending on Europarliament's configuration, our votes may result decisive
- being -e.g.- only 1 pirate MP, it's all the same whether we belong to a traditional group or not, if we aren't key MPs in votings; instead, if we become decisive in session votings -not committee votings-, we will have the ability of blocking directives and other texts
An example that shows why do you lie: Rosa Diez, only MP from Spanish UP&D in the Spanish Congress, belongs to the non-inscrits; however, and in spite of not being in many committees, she has the key in some votings, and she has tons of media focus each time she participates in parliamentary sessions. I'm not talking about if I do like her or not, I talk about how much advantage can be taken from being in the non-inscrits.
> As to the objection that we are going to be sucked up into the group and loose all identity, consider this: Are
> Convergència i Unió and Partido Nacionalista Vasco considered the same party in Spain? Is it even known that they are
> in the same european parliament group (ALDE)? I would say that the EP groups are barely known outside of the
> parliament and therefore the risk of getting considered to be a bad copy of a greater party or getting consumed by the
> group is very slim
Find another example, Marten, that's not a good one. PNV only concur to basque districts, and CiU only concur to catalan districts; different districts, so it's impossible for one of them to be sucked up into the other one. However, we concur in the same districts than nationalists, communists, greens, "liberals", conservatives, euroskepticals and socialists, so we actually would be sucked up -like United Left is being sucked up by PSOE here in Spain (from 22 MPs in 1996 to only 2 MPs in 2008)-.
At least use an example from a country I don't know -e.g., Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, etc-; don't try to fool me with false examples from my own country, because it comes too easy to find that are not true.
> and this played a not insignificant part in the planning of the conference.
Really? I cannot find it in the wiki of the conference; maybe the announce of Uppsale being used to develop in 1-2 days a PPI platform for 2009 European Election is in another different page? Regards,
( Aiarakoa )
Presidente de la Junta DIrectiva Nacional de PIRATA
P.S.: > Piratpartiet had had a conference in Uppsala with "like-minded parties"
Well, I've seen by myself that about the EP strategy, Max is actually a "like-minded party" when talking about surrendering to a traditional group in exchange of nothing -sorry, in exchange of money-. I hope that PPOE reject it, as well as the rest of the parties represented there -yesterday I was talking with a few PPI individuals not quite happy with the idea of unconditionally supporting any party in the non-core issues, I hope that it comes to be a generalised viewpoint-, when they find that you are willing to make us puppets of one of the seven european parliamentary groups -which one, Marten? communists? or greens?- for the non-core issues, betraying the no issues outside core issues principle.
P.P.S.: This is the opposite idea from inner democracy that we have in mind in PIRATA for PPI. The right thing would have been each pirate party analizing and internally approving the declaration before signing it; but parties' approval doesn't really matter to you, Marten.
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pp.international.general