[pp.int.general] Pirate Manifesto Reloaded

[Carlos Ayala]

----- Mensaje original ----
De: Ole Husgaard <pirat at sparre.dk>
Enviado: lunes, 7 de julio, 2008 20:40:15
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.

Yes, Ole, and discussion is what we are making with the Pirate Manifesto development procedure -even if some pirate parties (French, Polish, Russian and Austrialian are still missing, we have 8 out of 12 worldwide pirate parties having displayed a briefing of their ideologies) are missing in the First Stage, they can still join the development procedure during that First Stage and even at the Second Stage (through amendments)-.

However, Uppsala Declaration was decided only by Uppsala attendants, and its discussion was limited only to Uppsala's brainstorming time.

> > 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.

Come on, Ole, and read the 2006 Piratpartiet Valmanifest. They encouraged to support the government in non-core issues, even if the government didn't support them in core issues. That's the real Valmanifest. Yes, it doesn't mean to adapt core issues, but means to not being a no issues outside non-core issues party anymore -I wonder if we still give credit to that policy or not; in PIRATA, at least, we do-.

> 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.

Anyway, and whether that supposed variation does make sense or not in EP, Uppsala Declaration encourages to vote with the group -the group that such Declaration encourages PPI to join to, a group not from the whole 6 groups (Communists, Conservatives, Socialists, 'Liberals', Greens and Nationalists), but from the non-crackpot (whoever they are) groups-.

> > 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.

Glad to hear that, as this is almost exactly PIRATA's.

> But

There's always a 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. 

That's not Variation B. Variation B -if I have properly understood it- doesn't mean to join any group, but to deal case by case with each of the 6 2009's parliamentary groups; and also means to use LD as a basis to support any non-core issues.

> We do not want to say which group upfront, but wants to talk with the groups that can offer us the best deals.

Maybe PP DK doesn't say which group upfront, Uppsala Declaration does -I remain asking which are the crackpot groups, nobody is willing to answer; I'll remain asking it until having an answer-.

> 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.

I would have to consult EP rules; if those rules are simmilar to Spanish Congress groups, once you join a group, if you leave it, you won't never be allowed to join another group until 2014 -being deployed into non-inscrits-. If Uppsala Declaration supporters give as an argument the advantages of being in a parliamentary group -money, committees, etc-, then if EP rules are like Spanish rules, switching groups is not an option.

Any of Uppsala Declaration supporters should check EP rules first. As we are not Uppsala Declaration supporters, we are no longer concerned about the switching groups issue :) Before stating "we may even switch groups, if another group offers us a better deal", one has to be sure that EP rules allow such behaviour.

> > 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.

In PIRATA, non-core issues aren't goods to be trade. We care about Economy -Spanish GDP is about to grow below 0'5 %, even to reach zero growth-, we care about unemployment -with rates increasing in Spain-, we care about Education -PISA report leaves us as one of the worst EU countries regarding Education-, we care about Health System ... simply, such issues lay outside our core issues because of us being heterogeneous and thus not being able to reach agreements in such issues as easily as with author's rights, patents, Information Society or rights & liberties. It's not about not caring about non-core issues, but about only having, as core issues, those issues in which internally we're able to reach consenssus.

If we are not able, then we leave those issues to citizens to decide about them, or we simply abstain; if other parliamentary groups want to deal using non-core issues, we would consult citizens, as we don't want to go against our voters in issues not included in our platform -as our voters didn't elected us to do such things, we have to ask for permission-.

> > 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.

Actually I don't agree, and because of Amelia being right, as voters would know what to expect from us if we follow Uppsala Declaration: voters would know that any pirate party who follows UD's EP strategy would unconditionally give its vote in non-core issues to the best bidder ... and if no bidder arises, then give its vote in exchange of nothing.

What I wonder, is who, which EU eligible voter, would gives us the vote according to such strategy.

> > 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.

You're right, aloa5: PIRATA's voters would vote us not just because of patents, copyright, Information Society or rights&liberties, but also because of allowing them to use PIRATA as a loudspeaker for their claims -the higher the amount of votes becomes, the louder their claims would sound-. Thus, voters for such proposal are, indeed, voters who care about non-core 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.

Again you're right.

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

And you're right again. Such change means to abandon the no issues outside non-core issues policy; no one consulted us before Uppsala to do such thing.

> I did not say so !

No, not you, but Amelia, and Uppsala Declaration.

> > 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.

That's right, Ole is from PP DK, not from PP SE. So, I suppose they don't have the same strategies, I suppose they have different -whether closer or not- strategies.

> > 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.

KO with joining a group, OK with dealing with non-core issues ... as long as such dealing is developed in a case by case basis -otherwise, also KO-. I repeat that non-core issues aren't goods to be traded, but just issues in which we aren't able to reach a consenssus -aren't you concerned with unemployment, inmigration, education, etc? Cannot believe such thing-.

> > 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.

Ole, UD states the following: "When we are approached by lobbyists and other parties on issues that are outside the Pirate platform, we will refer them to the relevant person in the group and encourage them to make their case to him. This will allow us to focus on the issues that we really care about."

So if we hypothetically follow UD and hypothetically join a group, we cut off vB voters, as we would be transmitting them the following message: we don't care about your claims (try next door, the group's chairman). That's not the message we want to transmit in PIRATA to social groups, but the opposite: welcome to the Social Grid, here you have other social groups to talk to, what do you want to talk about? :).

Yes: Social Grid, a meeting point for citizens, lobbies, etc, to allow them to present their claims for both core and non-core issues, and to promote social participation in politics.

> > 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.

Opportunism is punished with ballots. Remember Spanish United Left, from 22 MPs in 1996 to only 2 in 2008, because of their opportunism -i.e., lack of political personality-.

> 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.

Our opinion doesn't care, Ole. What matters is what we do, and if we say no issues outside core issuesbut we hypothetically do unconditionally support other group in those non-core issues, we would being saying one thing while doing the opposite. Such behaviour, as I said before, uses to be punished by eligible voters.

> > 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.

As soon as we vote on a non-core issues, 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.

In PIRATA we are going to be careful with that, as we are going to put consenssus as a requirement to accept ILCs. E.g. -percentages are not definitive, as we are still defining thresholds-:

- ILC #1, 1'5 million signatures for, half million signatures against. 73 % support, we accept it.
- ILC #2, 3 million signatures for, half million signatures against. 62 % support, decision about whether to accept it or not is up to us
- ILC #3, 1'1 million signatures for, half million signatures against, 55 % support, we reject it -and we act as mediators between the differing parts, to allow them to reach an agreement on a joint ILC that would, finally, be accepted by us-.

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

Full consenssus only happen in regimes where pensee unique prevails; in democracy, 60-70 % of suppport is a bestiality!!! 80 % support is quite rare to be reached.

> > 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 

Wrong answer: one of PPI characteristics is not being left-wing nor right-wing, but joining different people from different ideologies around common core issues. So neutrality is a non negotiable issue, Ole -because, as aloa5 states, abandoning neutrality means to cut off roughly half of eligible voters (while the other half wouldn't chose the succedaneous pirate brand, but the original)-.

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

There will be six groups in Strasbourg in 2009, and you stated that in Uppsala you found between some crackpot groups not to be approached. Which groups are those? If there are groups not to be approached in advance, there are groups to be approached in advance. Please be so kind to answer to this.

> cannot say we will join a group with the reason Amalia gives: "....gives voters a chance to know...."

So you admit that Uppsala Declaration would mean, if accepted, to lose ideological neutrality.

> But 

So you admit ... but ... there's always a 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.

That's not true: the ideological profile of each group is pretty clear:

- communists
- socialists
- 'liberal'
- conservatives
- nationalists
- greens

It's a fact: joining any of those groups would mean to lose our ideological neutrality.

To conclude this mail, let me repeat the crucial question: Uppsala Declaration encourages to vote with the group -the group that
such Declaration encourages PPI to join to, a group not from the whole
6 groups (Communists, Conservatives, Socialists, 'Liberals', Greens and
Nationalists), but from the non-crackpot(whoever they are) groups-. Which are those crackpot groups? Regards,


                                                                                                 Carlos Ayala
                                                                                                 ( Aiarakoa )

                                                                         Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman



      ______________________________________________ 
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20080709/fff61828/attachment-0001.htm