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

[Reinier Bakels]

For brevity, I will give my comments here, not within the text below.
Firstly, on changing TRIPS: perhaps I did not make clear enough that there 
are short term, realistic options fosterering PP ideas that don't need a 
TRIPS change. Politics is always the art of finding workable compromises 
(unless you have an absolute majority ...). The contents of the "three step 
tests" (at least in the field of copyright) are the subject of debate among 
scholars right now.
That brings me to my second comment: in the German Greens movement, the 
"fundi's" were not fundamentalists in the negative sense, but people who 
were prepared to defend the core values of this political movement in an 
"undiluted" form: without making compromises. The realo's were controversial 
for the fundi's, because they (the realo's) were prepared to make 
compromises, because then it would be more likely to actually change 
something.
Our debate about TRIPS is a fine example. Please note that this agreement is 
an annex to the World Trade Agreement - which has its own dynamics (ever 
heard about things like the Uruguay and the Doha round?), or actually more 
the lack of it: it is pretty static.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carlos Ayala Vargas" <aiarakoa at yahoo.es>
To: "Pirate Parties International -- General Talk" 
<pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?


> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general