[pp.int.general] Our votes, and our problem with amendment 3 having been annulled

[Jens Seipenbusch]

Hi,

Ole, you are completely right here, thats exactly what and how it happened.

I might add, that at the time you worked out the whole amendment
planning in the past summer, i wasnt aware of the fact that you already
_decide_ on formalities of the process at all.
Thats mainly the fault of the german pirates, me and Helmut, since i
would have expected that Helmut wouldnt just decide on behalf of PP-DE
silently without notifying me - but thats what he did.

At the time i noticed this, it was obviously too late and i can
understand, that the other representatives, who did take part in the
summer process, are not very fond of altering things again.
This is the reason that i really tried to catch up asap with everything,
but i failed on one thing by 40 hours....well ok, as Ole pointed out, it
was only 2 days to notice the problem for us all.
Thats also the reason i did not use blocking amendments although i could
have done in time - so you can believe that i am interested in a good
final manifest, that we can present our members and expect their accordance.

I now see no other solution as to do a second amendment round.

And before that round we should make clear all the amendment rules and
voting rules that we now learned are important from the first amendment
round.
And it would be nice, if i could formally agree with this rules, which i
didnt have the possibility to do yet.

I really see no use of now rushing through only some problems we had
only to finish the manifesto asap, it is more important to have broad
acceptance than to meet any close deadline!
And imho it is still more important what is written inside the
manifesto, we shouldnt introduce more bureaucracy than EU parliament has.

Please dont let the spirit of the meeting in Uppsala be ruined by this
dispute.

best regards,
Jens

Ole Husgaard schrieb:
> David Arcos skrev:
>> Guys, don't feed the troll.
>>   
> Well, I don't want to throw flames, but we have an issue. PP DK and some
> other PPs are very sorry that amendment 3 was annulled less than two
> days before the deadline. This meant that we thought this change could
> be voted on, and we did not realize it was gone until after the
> deadline. Fortunately, I understand this will be discussed after the
> grammar/spelling corrections, so all this issue can be used for now is
> to become better in the future.
> 
>>From Carlos I understand that Jens asked him to annull the amendment. If
> I understand Carlos correctly, this was requested indirectly, as the
> amendment was proposed by a PP DE member who - according to Jens - did
> not have the right to propose amendments for PP DE. From Jens I
> understand that he did not want amendment 3 to be annulled. And I wonder
> why amendment 8 was not annulled, if all amendments from members of PP
> DE other than Jens should be annulled, as this was proposed by Max
> Moritz Sievers who is a PP DE member.
> 
> I think we can all be blamed for this. Jens for being too slow (putting
> on asbestos suit). Carlos for doing the wiki change when it was really
> Jens' job (putting on yet another asbestos suit). The rest of us for not
> ensuring sufficiently clear rules from the start (running to the nuclear
> bunker ;-).
> 
> We should not throw flames, but instead learn from our mistakes. How can
> we ensure something like this does not happen again? How can we make the
> process better next time?
> 
> I think it is important we know exactly who can propose amendments from
> the very start of the amendment proposal period. And we should not take
> annullment of amendments lightly. During the last week of the amendment
> proposal period it should probably be completely forbidden to annull
> amendments, so we can be sure that any amendments we want to vote for
> will still be present during the voting period.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Ole Husgaard.
>