[pp.int.general] Political Party X (was: Uppsala Declaration)
aiarakoa at yahoo.es
Tue Jul 1 20:00:10 CEST 2008
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Mårten Fjällström <marten.fjallstrom at piratpartiet.se>
Enviado: martes, 1 de julio, 2008 13:26:46
> It is a declaration of the conference, thus it needs no further signing. It is a non-binding document to be used or not, by
> the national parties.
What are you talking about? If you appear at the media claiming that PPI is willing to join a traditional parliamentary group (?), you MUST get the support of all PPI members. Of course it needs signing, even if you believe yourself a kind of anointed PPI spokesperson that whatever he says, it reflects PPI mood -specially if you believe such thing-.
> Before you drag up what I called it when I wrote my email here, please note that that was a fancy title I used here, on
> this mailing list. As I assume spanish media is no different from other media, the chance of them reading and writing
> about this declaration without you doing something (translation, titling, press releases, phone calls) is very close to
> zero. As it is apparent that you abhor it, well then it will never reach spanish media. Problem solved.
No, the problem is bigger than ever. You've told the media a lie, telling them that surrendering to a traditional party in exchange of nothing is the new PPI policy; however, you account with no PPI members signatures to support such statement; It's a grave, insolent movement.
> > Oh, money... you should have started from there ...
> I was actually refering to the seats on Committees.
Then we come back to the beginning: you encourage to surrender to a political party for nothing. You encourage to unconditionally support a traditional party in non-core issues, in exchange of that party not granting us support in core issues; is the most nonsensical move I've ever seen since Francisco Frutos "common house of the left" -losing 13 MPs from 22 in 1996 to 9 in 2000-.
> > That's a lie:
> "Lie" carry the notation that I know that I am wrong and still prefer to present something false. If we disagree on
> something and you assume that I lie, communication will in all probability soon be pointless.
It's a lie. You didn't say "being at non-inscrits we'll be less operative", no ... you said "staying independent within the parliament, which is a rather poor choice if we want to affect any change at all". Any change at all? You deliberately lie, and yes, I guess it's embarrassing to be caught on a lie ... though the best way to avoid it is not lying.
> > 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.
> Good example, pitty that no one knew about this example at the conference.
I'm glad to be useful. Now that you recognize that the decision of supporting such EP strategywas taken without enough information, let's gonna revoke it, erase it from Uppsala Declaration, and restart the issue.
> PSOE and UL is in different EP parliament groups, though I guess that was not your point.
UL has supported PSOE in almost all parliamentary decisions -in 2007, UL supported PSOE's budget "with a blocked-up nose", alleged Gaspar Llamazares-, and such behaviour was awarded with the loss of 3 of their 5 MPs -a loss to be added to their former loss of another 17 MPs-. So you can bet for sure that it's my point: surrendering to another party, supporting unconditionally another party, is the shortest way to self-destruction.
> The point of me using two parties from Spain was that you probably would know a lot about it, thus be able to confirm
> or deny wheter this is a good example.
I can confirm CiU & PNV was the worst example. They cannot suck up each other as they concur to different districts, while pirate parties will concur to the same districts than greens, socialists, communists, populars, liberals, euroskepticals and nationalists.
> We have good examples from Sweden with two parties in EPP and three in ALDE, all running in all districts. Again, if
> you assume that I am trying to fool you, whatever I write will be interpreted in the worst possible way and thus
> possibilities of communication will go down the drain.
Now present me those parties' behaviour, as well as those parties' progress in Sweden during the last elections -as I did with United Left and PSOE-. Then we will be able to communicate.
> As I did not get much input on the "work, work, work" parts, I suggested to the conference that we should do a
> document for the EP election 2009, and this was considered a good idea. I did want something to present on
> sunday as I had told the media that I would. I told this to the conference, but I think I was very clear that as long as we
> had something that was a complete document that could be printed out and not a wiki-page, it would work with the
- you admit that you already agreed with swedish media that a document for the EP election would be released, before agreeing it with the rest of PPI members
- you told me in your last mail "It is easier to get media attention if you have something to show (be it a roof, be it a chair) and this played a not insignificant part in the planning of the conference", but now you say "I suggested to the conference that we should do a document for the EP election 2009, and this was considered a good idea"; so, it wasn't in the conference planning, but in your planning; it always was, to get the EP Election platform in Uppsala, whoever attend there.
> I had already planned a rally on sunday together with the Ung Pirat (young pirates, our swedish youth organisation)
> Convention and invited the press. The rally was mentioned on the wiki, and getting media attention for our politics is
> always crucial
You said that the document played a not insignificant part in the planning of the conference, and it's not true. So it doesn't matter if you planned a press meeting with you and Ung Pirat; you're free to make whatever media moves you want to regarding Piratpartiet; however, never make another statement in the name of PPI without the approval of the rest of PPI members. Never. -actually you should disallow Uppsala Declaration until having the approval of PPI members (not only from the people who attended there)-. Regards,
( Aiarakoa )
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pp.international.general