[pp.int.general] Pirate Manifesto: status of internal ballots

[Reinier Bakels]

> The manifesto can be better or worse, but the most important thing is that 
> all parties agree with it (or, at least, nobody disagrees).
>
> Having a "joint/common" manifesto is much more important than having a 
> "perfect" manifesto.
>
Why? I agree that ideally it is nice to agree, but there also reasons to 
allow differences.
In particlular if PP does not limit itself to information policy 
("intellectual property", privacy) but also adresses democracy and human 
rights, there are major differences between countries. For instance, in The 
Netherlands there is a rise in populist parties who foster the idea that 
politicians no longer care about the needs of oridinary people and only play 
games between themselves. That may or may not be true to some extent, but I 
would definitely avoid to be identified with these - usually nationalist and 
racist populist movements. In my perception, information policy just gets 
insufficient attention.

Is privacy a priority? We could "agree to diagree". E.g. in DE, it is a 
sensitive topic due to history (Nazi and Stasi). In NL, the problem must be 
sold first, before the solution can be discussed. The Dutch "Freedom not 
Fear" event (as you know an event in October last year synchronised in many 
countries) attracted very little public attention. Oh yes, it was a nice 
party on the square in front of the parliament building, and the wheather 
was good, but the press coverage was minimal. Many people are concerned 
about public safety, and they appreciate camera surveillance. How do you 
explain: "yes you may be the victim of violence, but privacy is a higher 
good"??????????? The answer is not straightforward.

I do not fully understand the emphasis on democracy. Isn't it obvious? Yes, 
the PP will represent interests presently not propery represented, but that 
is all in the game. Yes, EU reform is needed. But I note that there is no 
unanimity what direction it should go. I am fully aware that the EU 
presently is a giant policy laundering machine working in the interests of 
copyright owners. But - in view of history - I am strongly opposed against 
the re-emerging nationalism, and I support the principle of solidarity 
between member states. For that reason, I favour EU extension. But I am 
aware that many people believe that "enough is enough", and do not want 
"strange" people like Turks, let alone former USSR states such a Ukraine. 
History has shown that the prospect of EU accession has been a powerful 
incentive for state reforms. But nowadays e.g. accession of Turkey is 
considered definitely inappropriate by many parties because Turkey is so 
"different". In my perception, Turkey is struggling in order to become a 
modern state, and deserves help. But actually, I would recommend the PP to 
stay out of such matters.

Re human rights, I repeat that experience shows that some arguments simply 
do not work, or work adversely. And the proposed text on human rights may 
give the impression that some human rights are considered less important by 
PP, like the right to family life (which implies the right of free choice of 
a spouse - a right that is being challenged for immigrants). I restatement 
of human rights is not only dangerous because of the risk of bein 
incomplete, it is also redundant because the ECHR generally is seen as 
powerful, and appropriate.