[pp.int.general] Pirate Manifesto Reloaded
aiarakoa at yahoo.es
Thu Jul 3 20:39:33 CEST 2008
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Anton Tamminen <anton.tamminen at piraattipuolue.fi>
Enviado: jueves, 3 de julio, 2008 19:31:47
Félix Robles wrote:
> > As Carlos has already said, if we vote the same way that other parties 99% of the time, and those other parties
> > accept our core issues, people will shift to vote those parties, not us.
> > Your proposal is just a political suicide.
> Essentially, this boils down into two options
Essentially, that's false. Oh, well, it's a well known tactic:
- I give two falsely unique options
- one is an ugly, ugly ... maybe the ugliest? one
- and the other is mine's
As well known as false, at least in this case
> assuming we aren't able to create a group of our own.
> 1. We don't co-operate with a group and are absolute about abstaining, and instead have no realistic means of
> influencing the EP within the near future. We will continue to be able to accomplish nothing until either voters give up
> their hope on us or we create a group of our own, somewhere in the distant future.
> 2. We co-operate with a group and apply necessary (to be defined) flexibility to enable us to have a direct means of
> influencing the EP within the near future. We spend much effort on finding the right group and right amount of
> flexibility. We are prepared to explain this to those who question our decision. If we, somewhere in the distant future,
> manage to create a group of our own, we may do so.
Option 1 is unrealistic, as anyone who has seats in Strasbourg, as long as no single parliamentary group has absolute majority of seats, has realistic means of influencing the EP. Look at the Spanish Congress (350 seats); with an scenario in which the government has 169 of 350 seats and the biggest opposition party has 154, each MP accounts.
Option 2 is a fake version of Uppsala Declaration, as you forget that
- Uppsala Declaration doesn't encourage to co-operate with a parliamentary group, but to join that group
- Uppsala Declaration doesn't encourage to negotiate, only to unconditionally support that group in non-core issues
- Uppsala Declaration doesn't summon that group to support us in core issues, but "do our utmost effort" to convince the group -without any grant-
- no one of you are prepared to explain none of these points if you are trying to explain the thing to me omitting them
There is a third option -there may be even more-: PIRATA's:
- negotiating issue by issue, instead of giving unconditional support
- not joining the parliamentary group, staying at the non-inscrits
- for each deal and through the infrastructures built for ILCs and Social Grid, consult citizens about if they accept the deal -the non-core issues part-.
> I know this is not an easy decision, especially for those of us who have high and strong ideals. I do not
> reject option 2. if the "necessary" part is well defined and agreeable
Yes, it's always difficult to not flip-flop over own's ideology, right? However we should make an effort, as long as we don't wanna look like traditional parties -if I think that my ideals are somehow disposable, I wouldn't have joint PIRATA, but a traditional party; I didn't join a traditional party, thus I find my ideals to be preserved-.
About the necessary thing, it's necessary that you read Article 25.a.2 of PIRATA Statute to find out that we won't give unconditional support to anyone in non-core issues; it won't never happen -not while in PIRATA stay members who still think that way and who also respect what a Statute means-. 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