[pp.int.general] PPI platform for EU Election 2009

[Reinier Bakels]

I think we should not loose the essence out of sight. Which is imho that 
referenda are VERY tricky. This may differ by country, but in NL (and in FR, 
BE, and wherever else) we have substantial populist movements. They usually 
foster a pretty unilateral view of society, and cater for people with a low 
education level who do not trust the government anyway. In an aging 
population, they tend to be conservative nationalist, "law and order", and 
suffer from xenophobia. Populist leaders create their own "reality" by 
excellent communication skills. From Goebbels to Berlusconi and Wilders in 
NL.

There is also a populist view of "intellectual property". The typical "law 
and order" mentality of present populism calls for tight enforcement of e.g. 
copyright. "Children who are allowed to steal a MP3 today will steal a 
bycycle tomorrow". While since the 18th century criminal law was general 
considered the "ultimum remedium", it is now a popular political theme to 
promote tough punishments.

The obvious solution is to provide counter-information. The PP movement is 
perfectly suited to do that. One does not need a lot of people to provide 
counter-information, only a smart strategy. A very simple exmaple: while the 
record companies always claim to foster the interests of ("poor") artists, 
this is merely a pretext to maintain a branch of industry which has become 
technologically obsolete due to the advent of widespread high-speed 
internet.

Well, perhaps a referendum is a good idea if and when people start to 
understand that copyright is abused to protect the interests of (the 
shareholders of) record companies, and more often is used against than in 
favour of artists.

And on the Lisbon treaty? I wonder what a proper question would be, if we 
reject a simple YES/NO referendum.

----- 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 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] PPI platform for EU Election 2009


> Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> It seems that you arer unfamiliar with the idea of "elites" in political 
>> science.
> I am not unfamiliar with it, I simply reject it. Of course there always 
> are leaders, reference people who launches viewpoints on different issues 
> and some people -for convenience, lack of time, etc-, rather than 
> employing their time on analyzing the facts, prefer to trust those leaders 
> for specific issues. However, and coming back to the liquid democracy 
> idea, if those leaders fail and/or betray the people's trust repeatedly, 
> people who delegate their decision power, as sovereigns, should have the 
> chance of trusting other leaders, or even make the decisions by 
> themselves -at least for trascendental issues like Lisboa Treaty-.
>
> Thinking of leaders as a tiny group of people who would have the power to 
> decide /on behalf of/ the society as a whole -even when they decide 
> opposite from people's will- seems bizarre and unacceptable for me.
>> While the term "elite" may sound like something undesirable, for 
>> political scientists there is a clear need for politicians acting as this 
>> kind of intermediaries to enable the political process, even though it 
>> may seem contradictory to the principle of the sovereignty of the people. 
>> It is a standard paradox for students: doe we still need a representative 
>> (rather than direct) democracy if technology (internet) enables votes 
>> every day? The answer is yes.
> We need a =>representative<= democracy only if it actually represents the 
> society; if it doesn't represent the society, we in PIRATA strongly 
> believe that a /new/ -not that new as simmilar approaches are currently 
> applied in democratic countries like USA (e.g., California) and 
> Switzerland- kind of democracy is required.
>
> In Spain, in 2006 and for the /IP/ law, there weren't any NOs in the 
> /overall/ ballot; however, *there are more than 3 million signatures 
> against such law* for some reasons -e.g., levies, status of RMOs, etc-, 
> and those 3 million signatures *would represent*, considering 25 million 
> cast votes, *circa 42 MPs out of 350*; that is, at least 42 MPs *should 
> have voted against /IP/ law, however it didn't happen*. Furthermore: as 
> this issue is not deeply dealt with in mass media, I'm pretty sure that if 
> all people were aware of, there would be more than 2 million signatures 
> against. *Is there representativity when more than 320 out of 350 -even 
> without any /NO/s- vote against the people's will* -for data retention, 
> for Internet censorship, for wicked author's rights legal framework, etc-? 
> *I think it's evident there isn't.
>
> *As RMS stated, it's seems pretty weird to expect traditional politicians 
> behaving properly, without corruption, without betrayal of people's will, 
> etc; if efficient counterweight, control tools available for the citizens 
> are not enabled, this circus of stolen sovereignty will continue forever 
> and ever.*
> *
>> The Lisbon treaty is a perfect example. Because we had a referendum in 
>> NL, there was *no* debate by professional politicians who had analysed 
>> the specific issues. There were only propaganda flyers. After the 
>> rejection in some countries, there were many explanations - so it was 
>> unclear what should be changed to find a proper successor for the Nice 
>> treaty. Frankly, I still do not know.
> As I said in my former mail, debate has been denied to citizens; specially 
> for EU issues, mass media covers the issue in a silent way, simply 
> remarking the /need/ -while there may be a need for having one 
> constitution, I don't know who does have the need for having this concrete 
> one- for having it passed.
>> But a referendum allows only two options: yes or no. Which leads to 
>> nothing. or at least not to improvements. Politicians will simply apply 
>> dirty tricks to push the same thing, under a different name (Lisbon 
>> Treaty instead of Constitution).
> That's not people's fault, but traditional politicians fault. Traditional 
> politicians find the /NO/ and don't think /hmm they reject it, which 
> changes should we apply in order to have them accepting it?/, but think 
> /hmm they reject it ... how can we disguise it in order to have them not 
> complaining if we pass it *without consulting them again*?/ It's not in 
> people's will but in traditional politicians wicked hearts -am I wrong, or 
> Ireland is the only country out of 25-26 Member States already having cast 
> their votes that has consulted their citizens through referenda?-.
>
>
> 
> Carlos Ayala
> 
> ( Aiarakoa )
>
> 
> Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
>
> P.S.: I'm not wrong about the Lisboa Treaty ratification process, and how 
> the chance for people to decide has been denied, in all 
> countries -including Spain, Netherlands and France-, except Ireland
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Treaty#At_a_glance
>
> P.P.S.: The current /joke/ is ... how many referendum will be needed, just 
> in case /NO/ wins again in Ireland, in order to get the result the 
> European Commission wants to? I thought that, if something is rejected, it 
> required a transitional term and/or substantial changes in order to have 
> the issue reconsidered ... however, when EC's will is on stake, it seems 
> there are no rules countering it.
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general