[pp.int.general] Pirate Manifesto Reloaded
aiarakoa at yahoo.es
Wed Jul 9 11:19:14 CEST 2008
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Ole Husgaard <pirat at sparre.dk>
Enviado: domingo, 6 de julio, 2008 18:41:53
> We agreed that the Pirate Manifesto is important and that we should concentrate on going forward with the Manifesto
> process. We also agreed that the tone on this mailinglist had been a bit bad since Uppsala, sometimes with
> non-productive and personal accusations. We should try getting back to the good constructive and concensus-building
> tone we usually have on this list.
> However, the strategy for EU if not the same as the Pirate Manifesto. Where the Pirate Manifesto should encompass all
> PPs in the world, the EU strategy is local to Europe.
> I think it is important we discuss this. If we just drop the topic now, we beg for problems later when our voters ask
> where we stand. We should try to agree on as much as we can, and clearly identify if there are some areas where we
> do not agree
OK, let's continue discussing this. The thing is that, anyway, before developing a platform -and being honest: a platform should display an enumeration of goals to be aimed to ... not necessarily giving the codes of the EU Directives to be change (e.g., 2006/24/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, etc), but their names and a brief summary of what they actually mean and which kind of changes do we want to apply them; a platform should be a text deeper and longer than Uppsala Declaration-, we should first in the EU scope to know what do we exactly have in common, i.e., what are we going to defend and how are we going to behave as a group if we achieve one or several seats at Strasbourg.
We in PIRATA see no point in making a platform before finding out our precise and concrete common goals; most things in life do have an order to be followed -here the reason due to which I talked about starting to build a house from the roof, what we understand that Uppsala Declaration actually comes to be-.
> For example, I think we have now agreed that any political bartering we should do in the EU-Parliament should not
> encompass getting nothing for something. And although I cannot talk for the other PPs, I think that all present at the
> conference agree with this.
Sure I agree with that, however, Ole, who doesn't? I mean, I cannot imagine who would actually -and seriously- encourage to give, in politics (suit&tie&suitcase jungle), anything in exchange of nothing. That's not the discussion, I think; the discussion is how to manage non-core issues, as well as whether to join a traditional group or not.
From Eduardo, Felix and mine's mails, it become clear that PIRATA's answers to that questions are:
- non-core issues: case by case treatment instead of unconditional support; abstention a priori; authorisation by citizens -via consultation and/or ILCs (initiatives with signatures)- to change that aprioristic abstention
- joining a traditional group: as aloa5 points, it would mean losing our political personality; and as we point, history has examples of how such behaviour leads to self-destruction
> You asked if PP SE introduced the proposal for EP strategy. They were definitely not alone, though I have to admit that I
> care a lot less about people and countries than about ideas and arguments.
Though that answer is not an answer to my question. I didn't asked if PP SE was alone or not by introducing the proposal for EP strategy, I asked if PP SE did actually introduce the proposal for EP strategy.
> But please let me sum up the process of the third international conference: It was quite similar to the earlier
> conferences. We started out with a brainstorm, where everybody gave their ideas. This lead to the identification of a
> set of areas that we then discussed in smaller groups. The groups then presented their discussions in plenum, where
> we discussed them before forming other groups. Finally we all discussed in plenum again
Sure, and within the brainstorm the idea of such EP strategy was introduced by ... ¿?
> So PP SE did not in any way dictate anything. The Uppsala document is what we who attended the conference could
> build consensus for. We also tried to respect the viewpoints of those not present, but in your case, I think we were not
> well enough informed about your viewpoints. We should learn from this, and at future conferences ask any countries
> not attending the conference to explicitly state their viewpoints on the topics to be discussed on the conference wiki.
I'm sure that PP SE didn't dictate the strategy if you mean with dictate that they forced the attendants to accept it; however that's not the question, the question is if PP SE was the pirate party who proposed the EP strategy or not.
> 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.
I actually gave you a link in my former mail, however, I'd like to do my best to leave things easy for you:
2006 Piratpartiet Valmanifest (in english), and the most interesting part:
"Both the factions refuse to meet our demands. This is the more
complicated case, but we can handle this one too. Initially we will
support one faction, and make a government possible. Most likely this
will be the ones with the less votes, so that the others, the
‘victors’, will feel that they have lost power they were entitled to.
They can, however, not do much about it, since we will support the
government without questioning in anything that does not involve our
Crystal clear, I think.
> If I understand correctly you would like to stay outside any groups if we cannot form our own group. I think we have
> already discussed advantages and disadvantages of this, and I respect your viewpoint though I do not agree that this is
> the best strategy - not even in the long run
You're the one who began this mail encouraging us to keep discussing these topics, so "I think we have already discussed advantages and disadvantages of this" seems to contradict the initial message. Are you actually willing to discuss these topics? Of course PIRATA's viewpoint has been left clear, and you of course are up to disagree with it; as well as we in PIRATA disagree with Uppsala Declaration's EP strategy, finding it -as aloa5 says- ilogical and, furthermore, the equivalent of shooting ourselves in a foot -thus being disallowed to run anymore-.
> But it also sounds to me like you want your EP members to vote abstain on everything except your core issues,
> unless a liquid democracy process with your political grassroots has decided otherwise.
You are wrong: we in PIRATA ask for a joint strategy, which is the opposite of each pirate party with MPs in Strasbourg making its own strategy -division uses not to give benefits-. Uppsala Declaration proposes one EP strategy, we simply propose a -very- different one; one of many reasons for us proposing it is because of Uppsala Declaration haven't being signed by no pirate party -so, we need an strategy agreed by all of us, EU PPI members-.
> I worry if such a process could be a bit stiff, and make it hard for your EP members to vote what they think you want
> because the democracy process is too slow. At least you should try to make this process as fast as possible. Please
Liquid democracy process may be slow -sometimes more than others-, as well as each parliamentary decisions uses to require months, even years to be taken, allowing us to have a big enough time window available to consult citizens and/or receive their initiatives. It all depends on us willing to hear citizens or not for non-core issues. Please comment :) 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