<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Hi,
<p>my name is Bernhard Schillo and i'm new on this mailing list. I'm actually
member of the german partys national board.
<p>In my opinion we have to deal with the correlation between the core
issues and non core issues. The intellectual property rights have an impact
on the whole society, not only on the media market (See for example: <A HREF="http://commonsblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/etcgroupclimategenesfinal05_08.pdf">http://commonsblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/etcgroupclimategenesfinal05_08.pdf</A>
), and the commons are as well as privacy a requirement for a democratic
society.
<p>This is why i strongly believe that we should stay on these issues and
underline the political relevance of these core issues. But perhaps it
coud be useful to write a manifesto with statements e.g. on business or
agriculture, which contains no new positions, but shows the correlation
between our core issues and that (for example the effects of patents on
agriculture or on monopolies in business)?!? But ok, for this election
it's probably too late anyway...
<p>For the european parliament election the discussion about core and non
core issues in my opinion only has a "strategical" relevance, because we
HAVE no common statements on non core issues on the european or international
platform and even if a pirate boards the parliament in this election, in
my opinion the sybmolic meaning and the publicity we get would be a bigger
advantage than the political power we achieve.
<p>So in my opinion the intention to find an easy to handle strategic way
to please the people who worry about what happens with their vote on other
issues than our core issues, is right. But i think, the conclusion is wrong.
To announce that we would support other parties brings the following problems:
If we specify the party(s) we would collaborate with, we have no bargaining
power against them because they know that we MUST work with them. If we
don't specify the possible partners there are two possibilities left: The
first: We say that we work with the leading group - but in my opinion too
many people wouldn't like that and wouldn't vote for us in this case and
the bargaining power wouldn't be very good, too. The second: We say nothing
about the possible partners - and in this case i don't know why we should
have a statement about it at all. In germany people are used to judge about
the possible coalition partners of a party because of their understanding
of the political opinion of the party. So we have to sharpen our image
as a party which works for human rights and is not only a lobby for filesharers,
and for this we neither need more issues nor a fixed strategy for coalitions.
We have to communicate the relevance of our core issues.
<p>Regards
<br>Bernhard Schillo
<br>
<p>Carlos Ayala schrieb:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style>
<div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt">
<div style="font-family: verdana,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">-----
Mensaje original ----
<br>De: aloa5 <piratenpartei@t-online.de>
<br>Enviado: jueves, 10 de julio, 2008 11:21:33
<br>> I just quote one important point of interest (and imho difference)
here:
<br>> ----snip----
<br>> > > > If we want to be "neutral" we have to get own ideas on different
issues.
<br>> > > As soon as we get a political opinion on a new issue, we are
no longer neutral on that issue.
<br>> > As soon as we vote on a non-core issues, we are no longer neutral
on that issue.
<br>> ----snip----
<br>> Imho just three different points of viewing.
<p>Actually, one remains neutral as long as takes no stance. Once any stance
has be taken, neutrality has gone. That's because PIRATA talks about abstention <span style="font-style: italic;">a
priori</span> on non-core issues, and only abandoning that abstention if
required by citizens -both via ILCs, or via consultation to citizens requested
by other parties-.
<p>That is, our support to neutrality is not because of not caring about
non-core issues, but because of aiming to treat issues that we think can
lay within a social consenssus -defense of UDHR (human rights), free non-commercial
culture sharing, enhancing of Information Society, patents reform-; if
we aren't sure about such consenssus in the rest of issues, we prefer citizens
to confirm which path do they want us to follow. Otherwise, in any issue
that citizens doesn't indicate us the path to follow, we prefer to remain
neutral.
<p>> Lets talk about this. And talk about if we think that vB (caring about
other issues but have our issues as a political
<br>> preference) is the group we need
<p>Definitely in PIRATA we choose vB, as we do care about non-core issues
-simply we don't have stances on those issues because of not being able
to reach consenssus on them-.<span style="font-weight: bold;"> vB voters
are our goal</span> :) Regards
<br>
<p>
Carlos Ayala
<br>
( Aiarakoa )
<p>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman</div>
</div>
<p><br>
<hr size=1>
<br><font face="Verdana"><font 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></font></font>
<br><font face="Verdana"><font size=-2>La bandeja de entrada m*°s inteligente.</font></font>
<pre>
<hr WIDTH="90%" SIZE=4>____________________________________________________
Pirate Parties International - General Talk
pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net
<a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a></pre>
</blockquote>
--
<br>bernhard schillo
<br>hospitalstr. 90 | 22767 hamburg
<p>:: fon 040 43 25 38 43
<br>:: fax 040 89 06 26 34
<br>:: <A HREF="http://www.bernhardschillo.de/">http://www.bernhardschillo.de/</A>
<br> </html>