<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;">Actually I thought that yesterday in the irc meeting we agreed on focusing on the Pirate Manifesto and end this topic, though I have no problem in answering this Ole's mail :)<br><br>----- Mensaje original ----<br>De: Ole Husgaard <pirat@sparre.dk><br>Enviado: viernes, 4 de julio, 2008 18:12:57<br>> Sorry if I am a bit slow, but now I think I know what you mean here.<br>> Please correct me if I am wrong.<br>><br>> It is this text from the Uppsala declaration: "Inside the group, we will do our utmost to persuade the other members of<br>> the group to join our position on the issues that fall within our political platform. In return, we´ll listen to the advice of<br>> the group on all other issues, and vote with
the group unless we have some strong reasons not to."<br>><br>> <span style="font-weight: bold;">This text could be interpreted</span> as saying that we are bound to vote with the group in exchange for just being<br>> allowed to try to persuade them. This is not the way I read the text, but my guess is that this is the way you read the<br>> text. Such an interpretation of the text is completely unacceptable to me (and I guess the rest of those participating in<br>> the conference)<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br><br>Bingo! Let's gonna leave aside the <span style="font-style: italic;">political personality</span> thing -in which aloa5 and PIRATA agree-: giving support in non-core issues to a group in exchange of that group not granting us support for our core issues -i.e., in exchange of nothing- is nonsensical.<br><br>The thing is not how the text could be interpreted: the thing is that actually the text <span
style="font-weight: bold;">explicitly states</span> that "in return" of doing "<span style="font-style: italic;">our utmost to persuade the other members of the group to join our position on the issues that fall within our political platform</span>", we would "<span style="font-style: italic;">listen to the advice of the group on all other issues, and <span style="font-weight: bold;">vote with the group</span> unless we have some strong reasons not to</span>". There's nothing to be understood, it's pretty clear: in exchange of trying to persuade that group to support our core issues, the text encourages to support that group unconditionally.<br><br>> No way we are going to support others without getting significant support for our core issues in return!<br><br>So you're no way going to support such strategy? I'm glad to hear that :)<br><br>> Yes, this is definitely where we have been misunderstanding each other. Of course we should not support
others<br>> without getting significant support for our core issues in return.<br>><br>> If we are to support then on some issue, they have to support us on some issue. They should get no free lunch from us<br>><br>> If this is not clear in the text I quoted above - and I guess it is not, since you interpret it differently than me - we should<br>> amend the text.<br>><br>> An amended Uppsala declaration that we can all stand behind is IMHO better than a declaration only some of us can<br>> support.<br><br>Anyway, amending that in the sense of making the unconditional support being in exchange of something instead of being in exchange of nothing would make the text stop being nonsensical, but still would be against <a href="http://www.partidopirata.es/wiki/Statute/En#Article_25:_Rules_of_the_Institutional_Groups"><span style="font-weight: bold;">PIRATA Statute</span></a> -thus, not being signable by PIRATA, as long as
unconditional support to any group is required (the text talks about ...joining a traditional group! the opposite of PIRATA's Statute terms)-. However, stopping from being nonsensical is always an advance ... though if the advance doesn't prevent us to self-destruct -i.e.: being sucked up by that group-, it's seems to be not enough advance.<br><br>> Here I think we have a genuine difference in opinion. I would prefer that we get influence. And please note that this<br>> influence we gain by being in a group does not bind us. We can still vote as we want - the vorst that could happen is<br>> that we get kicked from the group if we vote too differently, and the group would be reluctant of that as they would<br>> get smaller and loose our support.<br><br>The Uppsala Declaration says the opposite from what you say. You say "<span style="font-style: italic;">we can still vote as we want</span>", the Uppsala Declaration says we would "<span
style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">vote with the group</span> unless we have some strong reasons not to</span>". Opposite concepts.<br><br>About influence, as I said in my former mail, please note that anyway we would still be MPs, so we would still vote
in parliamentary sessions -being a voting key in some of them-.<br><br>> > But you don't have to tell me that, instead try to explain it to the Uppsala Declaration authors, who wrote that "once<br>> > elected, we will discuss with the groups that could be of interest". Which are those groups? Have Marten and Amelia<br>> > already decided which of Strasbourg seven parliamentary groups -i.e., conservative, 'socialist', 'liberal', communist,<br>> > green, nationalist and euroskeptical- could be of interest?<br>> Nobody has decided which groups could be of interest. If I remember correctly, <span style="font-weight: bold;">the text "with the groups that <br></span>><span style="font-weight: bold;"> could be of interest" was added because somebody worried that we otherwise would state that we <br></span>><span style="font-weight: bold;"> would negotiate even with crackpot groups</span>. I would have no problem with removing
this, as it makes sense that<br>> we only negotiate with groups that we have a chance of influencing on our core issues.<br><br>To honour the truth: there will be only six group -after the news that aloa5 brought this morning to us- in Europarliament: conservative, 'socialist', 'liberal', communist, green and nationalist. So, which of those groups are defined by <span style="font-style: italic;">you</span> -the Uppsala Declaration authors- as <span style="font-style: italic;">crackpots</span>?<br><br>Answering that question will answer my former question, as erasing those groups from the 6-group list would leave us with the <span style="font-style: italic;">groups that could be of interest</span>. I'm quite interested on know both:<br><br>- the <span style="font-style: italic;">crackpot</span> groups<br>- the <span style="font-style: italic;">groups that could be of interest</span><br><br>As I've commented in former mails, I've made my bet, however I
may be wrong. May it be unveiled?<br><br>> That's because ... well, I don't know why do you say such thing. Again, Uppsala Declaration encourages to "listen to the<br>> advice of the group on all other issues, and vote with the group unless we have some strong reasons not to". Why do<br>> you deny the undeniable?<br>> The text still says "unless [...]". Personally I would prefer that the word "strong" had not been included.<br><br>Maybe; however, it includes such word; so, I think that it means only the most worrying, liberticide non-core issues would be rejected. On the other hand, according to Uppsala Declaration, it encourages to vote the rest of non-core issues with the group -with a blocked up nose, if necessary-.<br><br>> There is no free lunch for us either. If we want to get some group to vote for our core issues, we have to give<br>> something back.<br><br>Of course: what about deal issue by issue, instead of giving
unconditional support? That's what PIRATA encourages, together with consulting the citizens, as the non-core issues would not be included in our political platform ... so they didn't vote us to support those issues -if I sign a contract (namely, a political platform) with a counterpart (namely, our voters), and I want to work outside the contract, we in PIRATA think that the logical move is to ask for permission to the counterpart-.<br><br>> So how are we going to persuade a group to vote for our core issues? We could say "We will consider on a case by case<br>> basis" (and I think we should do so, no matter what we say). But this would make it harder for us to get them to<br>> support our core issues than if we say "We will vote with you unless we think otherwise" (and still consider on a case<br>> by case basis). The result is the same, but with the last approach we can more easily persuade them<br><br>It may become harder,
though:<br><br>- is worth to be done, because of the <span style="font-style: italic;">political personality</span> thing.<br>- the unconditional support doesn't grant us a higher amount of core issues being supported<br><br>> > Piratpartiet 2006 Valmanifest states<br>> This is not the local SE elections, so their Valmanifest does IMHO not apply here. If they want to support others in their<br>> local politics without getting anything in return that is their problem.<br>><br>> But the Uppsala declaration is not just PP SE, and nothing like this is in the declaration (except that it looks like the<br>> text I quoted above could be interpreted differently, and we should fix this).<br><br>Were PPSE the ones who introduced the proposal about EP <span style="font-style: italic;">Strategy</span>? If they were, then you should use 2006 Piratpartiet Valmanifest as a prism to analyze what does it mean. Regards :)<br><br><br>
Carlos
Ayala<br> ( Aiarakoa )<br><br> Presidente de la Junta Directiva Nacional de PIRATA</div></div><br>
<hr size=1><br><font face="Verdana" size="-2">Enviado desde <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailuk/taglines/isp/control/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=52431/*http://es.docs.yahoo.com/mail/overview/index.html">Correo Yahoo!</a><br>La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.<br></font></body></html>