[pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> The "fun" was because TRIPS was pressed through by the US
by US lobbies
> in order to force other countries (presently over 160 member states) 
> to strengthen their "IP" laws up to US standards, and then the Americans
the US lobbies
> themselves were blamed not to properly observe the rules
And the consequences will be assumed ... though not by the ones who 
didn't observe the rules, but by the US society as a whole. Typical.
> Of course it is desirable to have explicit rules. These rules are the 
> result of a (diplomatic) political process. While they suggest 
> openness, the vagueness, combined by the typical risk averse mentality 
> of national parliaments, actually works out very restrictively.
>
> Realistically, imho one should foster the opportunity given by such 
> provisions. National governments should be encouraged (put under 
> political pressure) to experiment with the interpretation of these 
> "thee step test" rules rather than avoid risk.
Disagree. As I said, we in PIRATA only accept certainty of law; thus, 
while of course we would try to find the limits of the interpretation of 
the current legal framework, we are sure that such limits don't allow 
that much room for interpretation, and that changing the current legal 
framework is a real need.

If one doesn't like what a law states, the way is not giving that law an 
interpretation unfaithful to the law's wording and spirit, but changing 
that law.
> If you really want to change TRIPS, good luck! The present tendency is 
> in the opposite direction, with the US increasibly imposing "TRIPS 
> plus" conditions in bilateral agreements with (developing) nations.
Most of PPI goals are unfeasible in the short term, though feasible in 
the middle & long term. Does it mean that we should abandon those goals? 
No way. Simply, we should assume it will require some time and tons of work.
>>> I admit, this is by no means the kind of radical change that PP 
>>> would prefer. But imho one should combine long-term visionary 
>>> activity with down-to-earth hands-on activism relating to "earthy" 
>>> proposals.
>> Sorry, I don't know which is /the kind of radical change/ that you 
>> consider wouldn't be preferable for PPI.
> Radical change is for instance a change in TRIPS. Incidentally, I do 
> not mean "radical" in any kind of moral sense - I only mean that it is 
> pretty utopical.
Utopical would be stating "/TRIPS will be changed during 2009/"; has 
anyone here said such thing? I bet no one did, so there is no utopy 
here. It's as simple as: if we don't like TR/IP/S, we aim to change 
TR/IP/S; how long will it take us to make it, how many terms, how many 
years, I don't know the answer; *that if we want to change it we would 
aim to change it, I know the answer ... of course we would *-and I think 
we will, as I believe we want to-.
> In choosing political priorities, the product of impact and acceptance 
> likelyhood should be guiding. Proposals that are likely to be accepted 
> but have little impact are not very interesting, but the same applies 
> for proposals that have a major impact but are unlikely to be accepted 
> in the foreseeable future (except that utopical proposals may be 
> helpful in getting voters - as long a they are not obviously betrayed)
People won't feel betrayed if we leave clear that our chances will be 
proportional to the amount of collected votes and the amount of nailed 
seats. If in Europarliament, out of 750 seats, we nail only 1-2, and 
people requires us to make miracles, it would be bizarre; however, I 
think that if we develop a good performance during the 2009-2014 term, 
we will be able in 2014 to explain to eligible voters, "/if you want 
more success, we need more votes to have more seats, to gain more power 
to fulfil more of your requirements/".

You seem to forget which is the MEP's duty: the MEP's duty is to fulfil 
the platform that drove to his/her seat. If you vote always in a way 
coherent with what you promised and people punishes you with less votes, 
it would be like having a wonderful /curriculum vitae/ just to see how 
the job is given to a clumsy, badly trained candidate; in a freedom of 
information scenario, I think people is mature enough to don't allow it 
happening.
> The true challenge imho is to make proposals that are both realistic 
> AND have a substantial impact.
First of all we have to nail at least one seat in the Europarliament. 
Then, I believe that the true challenge for that/those MEPs would be 
making a blameless term; if it is done, I think success would be 
guaranteed and, thus, the number of seats would increase.
> The German Greens at some point in time distinguished "realo's" and 
> "fundi's". Do we have a similar divide in the PP movement?
I'm pretty amazed with this, truly. I mean, as /fundi/ comes from 
fundamentalist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundi_(politics)

how you dare to call me or even suggest that I am a fundamentalist? 
You've called me, up to date, /fifthcolumnist, stupid, fundamentalist/, 
and an incredibly long /et cetera/, while you are actually the one who 
dares to talk about what PPI is, what PPI thinks or which is the PPI 
spirit -without first asking anyone-; I, however, only talk about 
PIRATA's views -and, even, sometimes just about mines-. You use too many 
times to go too far with what you say.

Do you want /realo/'s and /fundi/'s examples? In 1996, United Left had 
22 MPs in Spanish Congress; it was achieved due to charismatic leader 
Julio Anguita openly aiming for his party's goals. Nowadays, United Left 
has only 1 + 1 MPs -actually only 1, as the other one belongs to a party 
associate rather than part of UL-. How did it happen? They only thought 
of making deals with the Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) and forgot to 
defend and pursue their own goals; thus, former UL voters decided that 
instead of voting UL, they should directly vote PSOE or not to vote at 
all. *One thing is to pursue impossible things, or pretending to achieve 
long term projects in the short term; and a different thing is to give 
up on what one wants just because of it being hard to achieve.*

Once said this, I have to say that there is not, as far as I know, such 
division in PPI; there are other disagreements -if there were no 
disagreement, there would be just one Final Draft for Pirate Manifesto-, 
though I think there is agreement on pirate parties in not giving up any 
of their goals -while assuming that some would probably have to wait 
until middle or long term to be achieved-.


                                                                                    
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                    
( Aiarakoa )

                                                             Partido 
Pirata National Board's Chairman