[pp.int.general] Pirate Manifesto Reloaded
piratenpartei at t-online.de
Mon Jul 7 14:17:27 CEST 2008
Ole Husgaard schrieb:
> Finally we all discussed in
> plenum again.
> So PP SE did not in any way dictate anything.
There is a great difference between finding a compromise at a meeting of
singular persons and to find compromises between (large) groups. You can
find this at the document of Lissabon... maybe the gouvernment-leader of
the EU states found a compromise. But this compromise is *perhaps* not a
one wich the people at home would have made.
So I agree that in order to find a strategy there have to be a
discussion in the different PP´s.
> I would like to know a bit more about the EP strategy you think would be
> best. If this has already been written somewhere, please just refer me
> to it.
> If I understand correctly you would like to stay outside any groups if
> we cannot form our own group. [....and so on]
Let´s begin trying to explain my personal point of view (and even my
problem with your p.). I am sure you can see the logic of the following.
- We (Party 1; P1) have a preference for our issues(I1). No further
issues - just adapt this from any other party 1:1 (sort of coalition).
- Any other party wich we found acceptable (P2) have other
preferences(I2) and a full programm we adapt.
- P1 have Preferences (I1) - and have either more (non-core)issues with
less preferences or will will have/find an own position for every voting
- P2 as above - but we don´t adapt the program.
Now we have two groups wich will be affected by a decision -
party-members and voters.
For now I talk about the group of voters (just in order to follow your
arguments; even members as well).
They don´t care about other issues.
Thy care about other issues.
"Deciding to join a coalition in Europarl gives voters a chance to know
what they will be able to expect from us in non-core issues. "
About wich group of voters do we talk about here? We talk (for sure) not
about Group vA - because they do not care about any other issues. If we
have own points of view before an election or find them before a certain
voting does not make a difference. So we talk obviously about group *vB*
-- the voters wich care about other issues.
Up to this point I think we agree (because this are just written
facts so that I can shorten statements in further discussions). From
this point we will have discussions about logic, political profile and
The arguments for not more issues has been: *Neutrality*
Now (your) change here: "voters.. will be able to expect from us.."
This is a significant change.
Maybe the "neutrality" fits to your system in Sweden with your blue and
red party´s.... but this even works only that far as you really have
this two options without preferences for one colour.
If this is NOT fact - or we say "we will have a coalition with left or
greens" - we are NOT neutral any longer, because we *adapt* (the voter
can expect...) the program of these party´s. (remember -- we are only
speaking of group vB here!!)
We *cut off* the possible voters (*and* members) wich do not really
belong to greens and/or "left´s" (we talk about vB - don´t argue with
vA... they don´t care about).
So - leaving the point of neutrality (supposed reason for not having
other issues) to get might. (opportunism)
I will draw a (personal!) conclusion here (you may have others - this we
will have to discuss).
If we want to be "neutral" we have to get own ideas on different issues.
We can have a program or get the ideas voting for voting via Liquid
Democracy (even - if we have decided over a lot of single points via LD
we will have an idea of a partial/complete program as well).
In Germany there is imho actual no way for a coalition with the
conservatives - and (from my point of view) only a littel chance about a
coalition with the liberal. So we would more seem to be "Green/Left" to
the voters anyway - and cut off the rest of the potential voters from
middle/right (wich are 50% as well). A coalition (and an adaption of
there program) would be sure (in case of winning seats and/or promising
"Neutrality" as such is not possible - or only as long as we do not join
any other party -- what you correctly mentioned would be a lack of
influence (but still is possible). And if we set true that we need other
partys for getting influence and if we set true that having no own ideas
on non-core issues (via LD or otherwise) would imply a deficit of
neutrality and loosing vB-Voters -- we cannot say we will join a group
with the reason Amalia gives: "....gives voters a chance to know...."
A long text. But I think I could not make it much shorter :/. And I´m
sorry about my written english (lack of practice). *My* preference is
logical thinking :).
More information about the pp.international.general