[pp.int.general] PPI board meeting minutes and some updates about the conference.

Sun Mar 4 14:19:29 CET 2012

Hola Isabela, hola rest of Galician parties

While I understand the Galician/Catalonian position on this, and that
circumventing the 1 voter per country makes totally sense for you, it just
does not make sense from a German point of view:
- Some local parties in Germany have more members than many national
parties in other countries, going by member count alone is not a good
starting point.
- It is unlikely to happen in the near future, but if there is a rift
within PPDE towards our position to PPI regional parties could start to ask
for votes, too. Unless the other parties grow exceptionally by then this
would 'allow' PPDE to 'swamp' PPI with regional/local parties if we
institutionalize what you propose, bringing the rift within PPDE to PPI.
- Even more problematic, an institutionalization of allowing regional
parties into PPI could allow PPDE to effectively take over PPI if it would
wish so. Not something I particularly would like to happen.

So where does that leave us? The PPI rule of one country/one vote is
obviously flawed when it comes to entities where it is unclear whether they
are countries in our sense or not (Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Flanders,
Wallonia, and also Scotland are obvious examples). If you say that
Catalonia and Galicia should get their own vote in PPI, why should Bavaria
or Frisia not get one? But if they get one, why shouldn't Northern Frisia,
the Sorbs, or Amsterdam (all entities that see themselves as somewhat
different than the rest of their country), or Limburg and Lower Saxony (who
see themselves as deserving the same rights as Bavaria and Friesland, since
they are on the same political level within their country)?

I personally am not a big fan of the organization of politics with the
concept of nations (I am a German, but I don't quite understand why I
should feel closer to someone in Munich compared to someone in Vienna,
Berne, Luxembourg, Eupen, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Prague or Wroclaw). But I
accept that this ambiguous concept is accepted by the vast majority of
other people, that today's politics deal with this concept, that it is
important to a lot of people, and that I won't be able to fundamentally
change it.

I think one vote per country has worked quite well for PPI. In order to
accomodate the situation in Spain I would suggest someone whom it is
important to drafts an amendment of the PPI statutes that allows regional
parties in exceptional circumstances to become ordinary members (maybe with
only half a vote?) after the GA votes in favor of admitting that party as
an ordinary member.  (Maybe you could include non-opposition by the
'affected' national party, too). There is no guarantee that such an
amendment would pass, however. This would then allow the members of PPI to
decide on a possible Kosovarian PP when there is one, and not force them to
make such a decision now.

The more fundamental question is obviously whether there is a lot of use in
having this discussion at all. Is an ordinary membership in PPI that
important to PP-CAT and PP-GAL, keeping PPI's tasks and limitations in
mind? Do PP-CAT and PP-GAL really disagree with PPES so much as far as PPI
is concerned? Shouldn't this discussion instead focus on how we set up PPEU
concerning national minorities (or at all), or how PPES could be reformed
that it is not seen as such a big problem for the members of PP-CAT and
PP-GAL?

-J

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Kenneth Peiruza <kenneth at pirata.cat> wrote:

>  Hi Isabel,
>
> It would be great to see some Galician Pirates in the forthcoming GA.
> Please think about it! There's going to be 6 PP-ES delegates and 4 PP-CAT
> delegates there, so, we can have a nice time with a lot of Pilsen beer :)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kenneth
>
>
> On 04/03/12 10:59, Isabel Fernández wrote:
>
> Hello Justus,
>
> We don't think PPI's job regulate between pirates parties either. That's
> why we said we'll declare nothing of the sort.
>
> Our suggestion was based on the premise 'one legal territorial pirate
> party - one vote' that we think it's a more fair than the actual
> situation. We think PPI could give it some thought to this issue.
>
> We'd love to send a delegate to the GA, but rumours are saing that we'll
> face elections next autumn at Galician Parlament and still there's a lot
> work to do... we're not sure we can attend to Prague. Generally rumours
> on this subject turn out to be true at the end. Maybe next time we are
> able to send Galician Delegation.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Isabel Fernandez.
>
>
> On 03/03/12 10:51, Justus Römeth wrote:
>
>  Thank you Isabel (and the rest of PP-GAL),
>
> I don't think PPI's job is to regulate between individual pirate parties,
> but rather to keep the movement growing, by providing infrastructure and a
> place to meet for pirates who's country does not have a PP, and by helping
> them through the early stages of forming a party. Therefore I don't think a
> model that would give PPDE ~20 times as much voting power as the next
> biggest party (PPSE is still not a member) would be appropriate.
>
> That is not to say that the current model of PPI concerning the situation
> in Spain is optimal. It is not. I think your proposed solution would make
> sense for something like PPEU, or a PPI with a much broadened scope (as
> well as institutions like the EP, but that is a different matter). As of
> yet I don't see the latter happening, however.
>
> Are you (PP-GAL) planning to send a delegate to the General assembly in
> Prague?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Justus
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:09 AM, HerNenya <isabel.fdez at mundo-r.com> <isabel.fdez at mundo-r.com> wrote:
>
>
>  I do apologize since last message was my first mail to this list. I'm
> not used to deal w/ digests.
>
> I repeat the message for better reading.
>
> Best Regards to all,
>
>
> Isabel Fernandez.
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> This is a message made by the members of public relations team for
> PP-GAL. It is agreed by all the members of mentioned team and we want to
> send it through our link in this mailing list of PPI members so it must
> be understood in the name of PP-GAL party and not from the sender who
> forwards this message.
>
> Since there were direct references to PP-GAL in this list and the way we
> organize ourselves in Spain, we consider it is important to be heard in
> our oppinion before of the rest of pirates parties of the world.
>
> First of all, we would like to say we are 2 months old as a political
> party in Spain and our foundation is based on the structure of Spain as
> a country formed by autonomies as such established in the Spanish
> Constitution Act [1] in article #148 in order to organize ourselves in
> the Spaniard territory. Moreover we have our own idiosyncrasy as
> language and culture quite different from other spaniard territories.
> Therefore we are an approved political party by the competent Ministry
> with same rights and duties as PP-ES and PP-CAT.
>
> As Kenneth from PP-CAT said in other previous message, we are
> encouraging a confederation at country level to organize common tasks
> that affect us as a nation such the cases of #megacomplaint and
> #opColapso (fighting against Sinde-Wert law [2]) that we are supporting
> PP-ES, PP-CAT and PP-GAL. Last week we have created a mailing list
> called pirata-34 to discuss those affairs.
>
> Regarding the subject about who can vote as a country or by the amount
> of pirate members, we consider system of countries is not fair precisely
> because of proportion of the population densities and pirates members. A
> possible fair solution (as a suggestion) to this matter could be that
> depending on the number of members from each pirate party, each party
> will provide a proportional amount of the contingency fund of PPI, as
> well, each party would have the proportional weight in PPI decisions.
>
> Refering to mentions about how to organize internally the different
> pirate parties in Spain, we considered that this mailing list is not the
> appropiate place to discuss about it, so we are not going to declare
> anything here.
>
> [1] http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/IDIOMAS/9/Espana/LeyFundamental/index.htm
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_Sinde
>
>
> Public Relations Team of PP-GAL.http://piratasdegalicia.org/web/
>
> --
> Isabel Fdez
> GPG EA63DF8E
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talkpp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.nethttp://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>  ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talkpp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.nethttp://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talkpp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.nethttp://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20120304/481d3054/attachment-0001.html>