[pp.int.general] Pirate Manifesto Reloaded
pirat at sparre.dk
Fri Jul 4 18:12:57 CEST 2008
Carlos Ayala skrev:
> ----- Mensaje original ----
> De: Ole Husgaard <pirat at sparre.dk>
> Enviado: jueves, 3 de julio, 2008 14:10:48
>> And the declaration do not talk about endorsing the politics of other members in the group.
> Come on, Ole: the first time I might believe you hadn't read it well; I'm gonna quote it again for you:
> It encourages to "listen to the advice of the group on all other issues, and vote with the group unless we have some strong reasons not to", in exchange of us doing "our utmost to persuade the other members of the group to join our position on the issues that fall within our political platform" -i.e., in exchange of that group not granting us support in those core issues-.
> If after quoting it you still state that it doesn't talk about endorsing the politics of other members in the group, I won't believe anymore that it's due to you not having read the Uppsala Declaration. It'll be just you denying the undeniable.
Sorry if I am a bit slow, but now I think I know what you mean here.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
It is this text from the Uppsala declaration: "Inside the group, we will
do our utmost to persuade the other members of the group to join our
position on the issues that fall within our political platform. In
return, we´ll listen to the advice of the group on all other issues, and
vote with the group unless we have some strong reasons not to."
This text could be interpreted as saying that we are bound to vote with
the group in exchange for just being allowed to try to persuade them.
This is not the way I read the text, but my guess is that this is the
way you read the text. Such an interpretation of the text is completely
unacceptable to me (and I guess the rest of those participating in the
conference). No way we are going to support others without getting
significant support for our core issues in return!
>> We will of course try to make the rest of the group vote like we do on the issues that are important. In exchange it
>> makes sense that we return the favor by voting like they want on other issues if we do not disagree.
> What does try mean? What kind of deal is that? We would try to get their support, and in exchange we would actually give our support. Give them almost all -or all, in non core issues-, getting almost nothing from them -or nothing, in core issues-. It would be the biggest political failure ever seen ...
Yes, this is definitely where we have been misunderstanding each other.
Of course we should not support others without getting significant
support for our core issues in return.
If we are to support then on some issue, they have to support us on some
issue. They should get no free lunch from us.
If this is not clear in the text I quoted above - and I guess it is not,
since you interpret it differently than me - we should amend the text.
An amended Uppsala declaration that we can all stand behind is IMHO
better than a declaration only some of us can support.
>> Please note that if we are outside any group, we do not get seats in the parliamentarian commitees. And it is in these
>> commitees most of the important decisions are taken. Also, by being in a group we get funding for staff.
> Please note that anyway we would still be MPs, so we would still vote in parliamentary sessions -being a voting key in some of them-. We in PIRATA prefer the loneliness of the non-inscrits during the first five years -in exchange of increasing the number of voters because of giving a good image to those voters-, rather than having a few temporary committee seats -in exchange of granting our political self-destruction-.
Here I think we have a genuine difference in opinion. I would prefer
that we get influence. And please note that this influence we gain by
being in a group does not bind us. We can still vote as we want - the
vorst that could happen is that we get kicked from the group if we vote
too differently, and the group would be reluctant of that as they would
get smaller and loose our support.
>>> - the first paragraph talks about dealing not with all current seven parliamentary groups, but with groups that could
>>> be of interest; which groups are those -Marten & Amelia haven't answered yet-? greens? united left/nordic green
>>> left? each one of us is supposed to have an own ideology for non-core issues; however, it's not acceptable to force
>>> PPI to follow personal/one-concrete-pirate-party ideologies
>> I think it makes good sense not to be too specific about which groups at this stage. If we do not get enough seats to
>> form our own group, we can get a better deal if we have not already decided. If we already decided and said we would
>> join group XXX, this group would not have to support us in our core issues, as the decision has already been taken
> But you don't have to tell me that, instead try to explain it to the Uppsala Declaration authors, who wrote that "once elected, we will discuss with the groups that could be of interest". Which are those groups? Have Marten and Amelia already decided which of Strasbourg seven parliamentary groups -i.e., conservative, 'socialist', 'liberal', communist, green, nationalist and euroskeptical- could be of interest?
> Better tell Marten and Amelia that such idea is nonsensical, instead of telling me.
Nobody has decided which groups could be of interest. If I remember
correctly, the text "with the groups that could be of interest" was
added because somebody worried that we otherwise would state that we
would negotiate even with crackpot groups. I would have no problem with
removing this, as it makes sense that we only negotiate with groups that
we have a chance of influencing on our core issues.
>> I agree with the last part of what you say here, and see nothing in the declaration making it impossible for individual
>> pirates in parliament to make their own personal decisions.
> That's because ... well, I don't know why do you say such thing. Again, Uppsala Declaration encourages to "listen to the advice of the group on all other issues, and vote with the group unless we have some strong reasons not to". Why do you deny the undeniable?
The text still says "unless [...]". Personally I would prefer that the
word "strong" had not been included.
There is no free lunch for us either. If we want to get some group to
vote for our core issues, we have to give something back.
So how are we going to persuade a group to vote for our core issues? We
could say "We will consider on a case by case basis" (and I think we
should do so, no matter what we say). But this would make it harder for
us to get them to support our core issues than if we say "We will vote
with you unless we think otherwise" (and still consider on a case by
case basis). The result is the same, but with the last approach we can
more easily persuade them.
>>> - if we support a traditional party in non-core issues in exchange of that party not granting us support in our core
>>> issues, we'd lose our ideological neutrality for nothing
>> Exactly. No reason to support others if they do not support us. Our support of others has a cost for them: They have to
>> support us in our core issues.
> Piratpartiet 2006 Valmanifest states
This is not the local SE elections, so their Valmanifest does IMHO not
apply here. If they want to support others in their local politics
without getting anything in return that is their problem.
But the Uppsala declaration is not just PP SE, and nothing like this is
in the declaration (except that it looks like the text I quoted above
could be interpreted differently, and we should fix this).
More information about the pp.international.general