[pp.int.general] Reinier & PPNL

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Core TX wrote:
> Vrijschrift/ScriptumLibre ideologie seems to equal Pirate ideologie. 
> However, we ( PPNL ) where founded after the swedish "Call to arms" 
> All members have agreed that PPNL will follow the PPI footsteps. The 
> Swedish Party is the origin, thus we will allow them to 
> veto.Communicateing a mandate is different from communicateing a 
> ideologie. I sincerely hope you can see the difference. We wish X  
> because we believe in Y.
However, you know that pirate parties ideologies don't perfectly match, 
but there are several nuances between them

http://int.piratenpartei.de/Pirate_Manifesto_parties_at_a_glance

We cannot ask Piratpartiet to fulfill all PIRATA requests, as long as 
nobody can ask PIRATA to fulfill all Piraten Partei Deutschland 
requests; same happens with Piraten Partei Deutschland, who cannot be 
asked to fulfill all Piratpartiet requests; etc. We share most goals 
-some of them with nuances-, and that justify the existence of PPI: all 
that we share in common. However, if what you say with "/all members 
have agreed that PPNL will follow the PPI footsteps. The Swedish Party 
is the origin, thus we will allow them to veto/" -maybe I haven't 
understood you well- is that we should follow Piratpartiet stances in 
the international scope just because the movement was founded there, I 
would simply disagree; we in PIRATA can only consider ourselves as your 
peers, not as subordinates of no one.

Andrew defined well the Manifesto purpose, as a Venn diagram of what we 
have in common; which is our goal for the international scope, to 
fulfill what we have in common, or to fulfill what a single party has in 
common? I think this is a primordial question to be solved in Helsinki.
> Choices should be made because of facts, not because of someone his 
> believes. If you think differently, you should consider reinstateing 
> the spanish inquisition, join the Jihad or start bloweing up cars with 
> the ETA.
False dichotomy. There aren't two only options:

- following the leader
- joining jihad, inquisition, ETA or whatever

There are plenty of different options, even not including -as Reinier 
prematurely did- schism: e.g., there is the inner democracy option 
-considering all pirate parties within PPI as peers-, the option 
encouraged by PIRATA.
> We'll see how much succes hou will have. ( Palestinians got their 
> state /after/ they stopped their Jihad & started diplomacy. But they 
> did not drop their ideologie )
> ( Because of you temperament, i'd like to say that this is not 
> personal gesture or insult, just a figure of speech, so dont flame 
> please )
You can bet for sure that I have temperament; however, as 
terrorism/jihad/inquisition has never been my option, I don't feel 
reached by such comparison, which by the way I don't understand why has 
been done -i.e., why did you use that "/figure of speech/"-, specially 
given that privately I told you that I reject such comparisons ...
> No the people not proposeing anything are the ones irresponsible. And 
> that group of people does not include you, or Reinier.
> But it does include me while i am responsible for the dutch contribution.
The people who don't propose things *in time* is also irresponsible. The 
goal of having the Manifesto signed at the Helsinki conference was well 
known by all representatives, published in the wiki and repeatedly 
commented in the PPI list.
> As the dutch representative, i hereby formally declare my trust in 
> Reinier his words.
> And if you trust me thus PPNL, you know he will keep his word.
You can also trust me if I tell you that, as long as our goal remains to 
have the Manifesto ready to be signed in Helsinki, Reinier should give 
(or already have given) his proposal to allow parties to have enough 
time to evaluate it.
> Reinier already pointed out wich dangers it might provide. The only 
> profit we make is that of union. United we stand, devided we fall.
> Therefore the international /manifest/ must be watertight. So please 
> be aware of the fact that i did not choose *any* /manifest/ yet.
I know that you didn't choose any draft yet, and I'm sure that you would 
notice us when Piraten Partij members decide which draft do you support. 
About the "/united we stand, divided we fall/", not that right: united 
on what? Think of the lemmings myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmings#Myths_and_misconceptions

and tell me if you disagree with me when I say that being united is not 
the only thing that matters, but also to know what are we united on.
> It looks promiseing, yet you failed to persuade the Swedish. Do you 
> know why ?
> I doubt you do, and are simply trying to push a agenda.
PPI does not begin nor end in Piratpartiet. Sure it's the biggest party, 
though we are actually *thirteen* pirate parties -and Christian and Rick 
were willing in Berlin to make the Manifesto-.

http://int.piratenpartei.de/Pirate_Manifesto#Who

First of all, I haven't heard no single Piratpartiet representative 
(Amelia is supposedly its representative) pointing at specific parts of 
the Manifesto that would may collide with Piratpartiet's ideology; and 
if that were the case, they were up to propose as many amendments as 
they would wish to -maybe they didn't propose amendments because they 
fully agreed with First Draft, who knows? I'm not a foreseer-.

So -apart from the fact that they haven't stated "/we won't sign any 
draft/"- while I may play to the /guess why Piratpartiet is not 
persuaded/'s game, I don't have time to: if they want to, they will be 
able to tell us why, their reasons.
> When you get rid of it, you eventually end up with a "alternative" . 
> The difference is merely one that only exists in words.
> Yet again, a fine example of the difference between, communicateing a 
> ideologie, versus communicateing a direct step forward c.q ( partial ) 
> solution. ( One that binds you ! )
The difference is not trivial. Talking about abolishing or not 
abolishing may provoke some pirate parties not being comfortable with 
the wording; talking about changing things, and commenting some 
characteristics of the aimed changes, allows everyone to feel 
comfortable and find their national goals fit into that international 
wording.

Because that's the Manifesto aim, to make all pirate parties ideologies 
fit in the international scope -i.e., to identify what do we have in 
common, to know what are we going to work on-, isn't it?
> The manifest is about union, Draft C devides us on this point.
Draft C doesn't divide anything, nor Draft B. Drafts B & C exist because 
that divide exist; I think you mistake cause with consequence. Having 
more than one draft is not the cause, but the consequence of the divide.
> This is just plain logic or is it not ? Why include it at all ?
> We just need to include what we all stand fore. Not what devides us. 
> Unless you would like to create a manual for our  opponents.
> More importantly, it would cost us our leverage.
 From Uppsala Declaration 
<http://www.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/european_pirate_platform_2009>:

"/In the European Parliament, it is the party groups that are the key to 
getting influence. Once elected, we will discuss with the groups that 
could be of interest, to determine which group is closest to us, and 
join that group.

Inside the group, we will do our utmost to persuade the other members of 
the group to join our position on the issues that fall within our 
political platform. In return, we´ll listen to the advice of the group 
on all other issues, and vote with the group unless we have some strong 
reasons not to.

When we are approached by lobbyists and other parties on issues that are 
outside the Pirate platform, we will refer them to the relevant person 
in the group and encourage them to make their case to him. This will 
allow us to focus on the issues that we really care about/ "

http://www.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/european_pirate_platform_2009

As you see, Swedish have their own plan regarding non-core issues 
-following the command of another parliamentary group when voting 
non-core issues-; Pirate Manifesto doesn't make such thing. Do you still 
thing that /plain logic/ stuff hasn't to be included?
> I agree there should be a uniteing manifest. So does Reinier. I just 
> do not wish to rush it OR include dangerous statements that lateron 
> can damage ALL partys
How can it damage all parties, if most issues are taken as abstraction 
of all pirate parties stances? Besides that paragraph about author's 
rights, and the one about discrimination, there is no other known 
disagreement between parties -Reinier is an individual who doesn't talk 
on behalf of any pirate party-. Where is the divide in the rest of 
topics, and why debate wasn't held to solve the controversy on the 
existing disagreements -debate was twice summoned-?

If there is any divide, I've did nothing but trying to solve it, and you 
all are witness. Again: Pirate Manifesto is not the cause of any divide, 
but the three Final Drafts are its consequence.
>
>     I'm pretty sure of that; even, remember that I suggested you -as
>     you weren't able for the amendments period to contact your fellow
>     party members- to not cast Piraten Partij's votes if they were not
>     properly discussed and voted, so I think that this time, having
>     enough time -and having the previous case in mind-, your signature
>     will represent Piraten Partij's. Regards,
>
>
> I'd be embarrased if i have to ask all members to vote on these 
> drafts.They are all hard to reach and hell would break loose. I will 
> only propose a manifest, or drafts after they are all debated.
That's a peculiar viewpoint, I mean:

- there won't be balloting until drafts are debated
- people don't attend to debates when summoned
- people don't even suggest dates & times for new debates to be summoned

Sort of a blocking attitude, isn't it? I'm afraid -unless I'm wrong- 
that you are not willing to even hold a ballot on Pirate Manifesto Final 
Drafts, am I right?
> Then we continue focus on solutions. My perception tell me you are 
> stil in the ideology fase while trying to create a ideology. While 
> Reinier is in the solution fase, while trying to create a solution.
In PIRATA we have clear the ideology, that phase was solved early in 
2006. But we are not talking about PIRATA, nor about Piraten Partij, not 
about Piratpartiet ... we are talking about PPI; and whether our common 
ideology is clear or not -whether the Venn diagram Andrew talked about 
is already drawn or not- is what we try to find out here.

And if it's not drawn, how would be Reinier able to find any solution 
.... apart from his solution? But Reinier is not PPI, just an individual 
like you and me; furthermore, nobody in PPI has given Reinier a 
spokesman status. The only voice that I -as PIRATA representative- take 
as formal and with enough weight is the pirate parties voices, 
supposedly spread through their representatives. Regards,


                                                                                         
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                          
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                 Partido 
Pirata National Board's Chairman