[pp.int.general] Pirate Manifesto Reloaded

[Ole Husgaard]

aloa5 skrev:
> 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.
>   
Lissabon is a good example. You don't just push a compromise made by a
group of people. Instead you present it for discussion.

> 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]
>>     
Actually this question was directed at PP ES, and would like them to
answer. I have read the english translation of their statues, and would
like more information from them.

> 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.
>
>
> Variantion A)
> - 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.
>   
Perhaps you think this is what PP SE wants to do in their local
election. It is not, according to the material I have read from PP SE.
There is a big difference between adapting a political program and
political bartering.

Anyway, this variation does not make sense in EP, as we we do not have
all other parties belonging to two almost equal-sized blocks as they
have in the Swedish Parliament.

> Variation B)
> - 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
> via LD.
>
> - P2 as above - but we don´t adapt the program.
>   
Perhaps this is closer to what we would prefer in PP DK. But since I am
not completely sure I fully understand the above, I better state it in
my own words: We would like to join a group, if we can get them to vote
for our core issues in exchange for us voting like they want in other
cases unless we see a reason to vote differently. We do not want to say
which group upfront, but wants to talk with the groups that can offer us
the best deals. We may even switch groups, if another group offers us a
better deal. OTOH we respect if EP members from other countries do not
want to join a group. If we all get enough seats for a Pirate group, we
should of course form our own Pirate group.

> 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).
>
> VotersA (vA):
> They don´t care about other issues.
>
> VotersB (*vB*):
> Thy care about other issues.
>   
We (PP DK) do not really care about other issues. We care strongly about
our core issues, and want to use the other issues for political bartering.

> Quoting Amelia:
> "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. "
>   
I don't agree with Amelia here, as the voters will not know which group
we join before the election. They should know our core issues, and that
we will join a group if they can support us with these.

> 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 
> principles.
>
>
> The arguments for not more issues has been: *Neutrality*
> Now (your) change here: "voters.. will be able to expect from us.."
>   
I did not say so !

> 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.
>   
I am not swedish. I am the chairman of PP DK. Denmark is not the same as
Sweden.

> 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!!)
>   
But who is talking about coalitions or adapting political problems? I don't.

I talk about joining a group if it can give us better influence and
better support for our core issues. And I talk about political bartering
with non-core issues.

> 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).
>   
Of course we do, if we enter coalitions or adapt political programs.

> So - leaving the point of neutrality (supposed reason for not having
> other issues) to get might. (opportunism)
>   
You are right that political bartering is a form of opportunism.

But I am not talking about leaving neutrality on non-core issues. Your
political opinion on a non-core issue can still be neutral, even if you
- at a specific time - vote other than abstain on it if this means you
can get more votes for the core issues.

> 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. 
>   
As soon as we get a political opinion on a new issue, we are no longer
neutral on that issue.

>   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).
>   
Please be careful with simple democracy for taking a stance on new issues.

For example, think about new issue A. You get a stance on it because 55%
are in favor. But 40% leave because they disagree. Repeat this with
issues B and C, and you are down to 22% of your original support.

IMHO taking a stance on new issues must be widely discussed, and near
full consensus should be obtained before voting on it.

> 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 
> a coalition).
>
> "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...."
>   
I agree, as we would leave neutrality if we in advance say that we want
to join a certain group.

But please note that groups in EP are not parties. Groups in EP often
contain many parties, so joining a group does not mean joining another
party.

> 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 :).
>   
I think I understand most of what you write.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.