<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><div>Hello:<br><br>At this point I think we in PPI have no kind of doubt about what the "<span style="font-style: italic;">no issues outside core issues</span>" means for us, and also about why do we have that issue -one of the very essential ones for us-. Specially, the <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> is the clearest thing around this issue -as <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.piratpartiet.se/wiki/Pirate_Manifesto"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rick explains</span></a>, "<span
style="font-style: italic;">issues outside these areas do not unite us but divide us</span>";
indeed, members of the several pirate parties are individuals with a
heterogeneous set of ideologies ... and despite of that, we unite
ourselves around our core set of issues because we all agree with them;
that's one of our main strengths-.<br><br>Does this always happens? It seems the answer is
no. But why, if our policy is crystal clear? Because we do interact
with other parties who have stances in issues outside our core issues,
so negotiations often arise; when negotiation brings a term agreement
-i.e., a party supporting the whole pirate agenda, in exchange of
pirates supporting all issues outside core issues-, it means that
-besides other possible conclusions about it-, despite <span style="text-decoration: underline;">before</span> the election there were <span style="text-decoration: underline;">no</span> issues outside our core issues, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">after</span> the election there would be <span style="text-decoration: underline;">all</span> issues outside our core issues.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span> That ought to be compatible with the <span style="font-style: italic;">no issues
outside core issues</span>
policy, as it's been seen in some pirate platforms can be guessed
-because the pirate party as a party does would not have by itself any
stance outside the core issues; the pirate party would just being
supporting other parties' stances-; then we aren't dealing with the
prospect of never supporting any stance in any issue outside our core
issues, but we are dealing with the prospect of <span style="text-decoration: underline; font-style: italic;">who</span> are we going to support and <span style="text-decoration: underline; font-style: italic;">why</span>.<br><br>We,
in Spanish Pirate Party, have a different approach for this question.
Of course we are open to negotiate with the rest of the parliamentary
groups as they've been democratically elected by citizens, but that's
not the point. The point is that we think that's essential to stick to
the political platform and, then, as our voters will trust us for our
platform -and not because of anything else-, our voters may consent
some non platform-related issues, but not any kind of them -imagine <span style="font-weight: bold;">the
2003 Iraq's war, which was rejected by 90 % of Spanish population</span>;
imagine that we in 2000 would have reached a deal with Spanish
Popular's Party in which they would have supported every of our
requests and we would supported every of ours; <span style="font-weight: bold;">do you foresee the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">severe punishment</span>
that citizens would have inflicted us in 2004 Spanish Election for
acting against their will, supporting the government's decision in a
non-core issue?</span>-.<br><br>Then, other parties' stances are not
the most important thing for us; neither parliamentary majorities -as
concrete agreements can be reached without compromising a term
agreement-; <span style="font-weight: bold;">we believe that the north for us to decide whether to support any issue outside our core issues must be the citizen's will</span>. I know, now comes the big question ... how to do it?<br><br>The answer is:
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative"><span style="font-weight: bold;">citizen's initiative</span></a>.
Of course not from an organic -State, as it would require us to
conceive stances on issues outside our core issues- point of view, but <span style="font-weight: bold;">using pirate parties as megaphone for the citizen's will</span>.
There are many countries -included Spain- in which lesser, not pure
versions of this are available; however, there are only few countries
where a full version is included in an organic form -Switzerland at a
nation level, and United States at a state level (only in some states),
are two prominent examples-.<br><br>The idea is quite simple:<br><br>- there would be three requirements to be met if we are gonna support any initiative outside our core issues:<br>* <span style="font-weight: bold;">enough turnout</span> -for a 45 million population country like Spain, with 33'5 million
people with the right to vote,
we've thought of between 500.000 and a million citizens as the minimum required turnout to validate a consultation-<br>* <span style="font-weight: bold;">enough consenssus</span>
-consenssus, as Rick said, is what gives us our strength; so if we are
going to support anything outside our core issues, we think social
consenssus is required; we think of a percentage between 60 % and 75 %
(75 % as a securing one; and 60 % as a dubious one, where between 60 %
and 75 % the party would decide whether validate or not the
consultation-<br>* <span style="font-weight: bold;">initiatives compatible with our principles</span>; what if a new tyrannical, genocide party comes and says <span style="font-style: italic;">hey guys I'll support your platform if you support mine</span>? we would answer him <span style="font-style: italic;">hey go to hell, <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">read this
first</span></a></span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><br>-
in one hand, when as a result of a negotiation with other parties, we
become asked to support any non-core issues, we would communicate the
proposal to the citizens; they would then decide whether to support it
or not, and based on the citizen's decision we would make ours<br><br>-
in the other hand, as we would have opened the door to citizen's will
outside our core issues, they would may also be able to use us, our
seats, to make their proposals reach the European Parliament<br><br>I bet many of you have heard tons of times the <span style="font-style: italic;">sure, guys, but what about the other issues?</span> thing; well, <span style="font-weight: bold;">with this approach, we would be able to give them the best answer ... we would be offering citizens Democracy 2.0</span>
-a model where representative would truly and faithfully represent
their voters' will-. We're sure that if we achieve our goals and get at
least 19 seats in the 2009 election, we will have to face many tough
decisions that will affect non-core issues. What would we do then?
Because an answer to this issue is required as the question will arise,
this issue is needed to be discussed in Berlin.<br><br>Regards, <br><br><br> Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br>
<hr size=1><br><font face="Verdana" size="-2">Web Revelación Yahoo! 2007:<br> Premio Favorita del Público - <a href="http://es.promotions.yahoo.com/revelacion2007/favoritos/">¡Vota tu preferida!</a></font></body></html>