Results (only passed votes)
- Most people understood the procedures and know what the green voting cards are for.
- All votes need to be recorded publicly.
- Votes are only recorded on request.
- Replace all objectives with: 'Work in the interest of its members.'
- Names are "The European Pirate Party", "European Pirates", "PPEU", "PIRATES" plus the translations into the respective languages.
- The Party seat is in belgium.
- The seat is 'Rue Gerard 47a, 1040 Etterbeek'
- The party is founded under belgian law.
- English is the working language. And the language of the official documents. Other languages allowed, but the english is the binding version.
- 'chairman' is replaced by 'chairperson'
- The members of the association shall adopt a common manifest which shall reflet the principles and policies of the european pirate movement.
- The PPEU does not interfere with the relations between a delegate and the delegate's party.
- PPEU will not interfere with the sovereignity of its members.
- PPEU statutes do not mandate a minimum number of members of PPEU.
- The fourth category of members is called 'Parliamentarian Members'.
- The five types of members are 'Ordinary Members', 'Associate Members', 'Observer Members', 'Parliamentarian Members', 'Special Members'
- There shall be 'Registered Supporters' as non-members.
- Ordinary Member requirement: Based in a member of the EU, a candidate state for the EU, a state which applied for candidate status or an EFTA state.
- Ordinary Member requirement: ... or based in a state which is within europe.
- Ordinary Member requirement: A political party in europe or something which intends to become one.
- Not an Ordinary Member requirement:
Intend to participate in elections to the european parliament.
- Ordinary Member requirement: The party has filed for running in an election at the regional, state or EU elections.
- Ordinary Member requirement: Not subordinate to any other party.
- Ordinary Member requirement: A party which carries the term 'Pirate' or any translation or inflection of this term in its name.
- Ordinary Member requirement: Maintain a democratic policial base and a democratic intertal structure.
- Ordinary Member requirement: Maintain transparency including financial transparency towards its members.
- A single delegate can have at most 2 votes.
- Ordinary Member obligation: Pay their designated fee as Ordinary Members in a timely manner.
- Ordinary Member obligation: Report every year to the association on party and policy developments.
- Ordinary Member right: Vote in the council on every matter.
- Ordinary Member right: Participate in political discussions and to speak at Council meetings.
- Ordinary Member right: Appoint delegates and propose candidates for the board.
- Ordinary Member right: Have access to use of the Associations logo and other representational devices.
- Observer Member requirement: Maintain transparency including financial transparency towards their members.
- Observer Member requirement: Non-profit organization.
- Founding will not happen in the first quarter of 2013.
- The next statutes meeting will be in december in the UK and the second one in France in early february.
- We create a detailed agenda and a finalised rules of proceedure three weeks before the next meeting.
- The official discussion of PPEU statutes will take place on the mailing list, where only delegates can write.
- Any young pirate organization can appoint someone to write on this email list.
Greetings, explanation about lunch, we'll save some time there.
Gregory: [More Greetings.] There is a proposed procedure, it's on the wiki. I propose we adopt these rules and procedures. Raise your hands if you are a delegate and want to follow the procedures published in the wiki. Anybody against it? Nobody.
Gregory: We need a chairman of the meeting. We have a candidate here: Krishna. Is there another delegate for candidating for this role? No. Then votes for Krishna please. Votes against? None. Congratulations.
Krishna: We need to set an agenda. Also, we have to publish the way we're going to vote. Stefan will explain more details of the voting procedures.
Stefan: From those delegates who are here, we need some authorization of your board of your party, unless the website of your party already states that you are a delegate. Muriel will distribute the cards. And we'd like to have the delegates in the first row, please.
Krishna: We need all the delegates - we ask them to sit in the front row.
Muriel: There is not enough room in the first row.
Krishna: The ones with the whites cards should be in the front row.
Krishna: We need several helpers. A person who takes the minutes. I propose him. Who is in favour that Jens will do the minutes. Who is against it?
Comment: It might be quicker to do against first.
Krishna: For later sessions, we need moderators. One of them is Julia. The others please stand up.
Muriel: The others may come later.
Krishna: Ok, then you can object to them once their sessions start.
Krishna: Who will count the votes. Anybody?
Krishna: You are not a delegate?
Krishna: [??? Explanation of the voting card colors, Red, Green, White. The meaning should be obvious. ???]
Krishna: We also have remote delegates. We should have one person who is a proxy for the remote delegates.
Comment: ??? We usually have assemblies with remote participation, we usually use voice chat. It usually works quite well.
Krishna: The advantage of proxies is ???
Comment: Proxies are usually problematic. They go to the bathroom ????
Discussion in the plenum.
Krishna: The Agenda. Many of you have been in mumble sessions, but not everyone was there. I propose that we start with a recap of the things we discussed. ??? And also, there is a new proposal for the statutes and I would go through it and explain the major point. This is topic 3 in the agenda. And after that, we have a slice for further details on the procedures. And then we'd go chapter by chapter through the statutes for the PPEU. If we vote, what we want to do is not vote on the exact wording. We prepared sheets with simple statements which we can vote upon, and the wording can be done later. For example, Session 5, General Provisions, ??? The delegates can pass motions if they want to change anything, there can be countermotions, and obviously everyone can speak.
Krishna: Who is against this way of the agenda? Who is for this agenda? I take it as a yes.
Krishna: Tomorrow we have, we start with a possibility where complicated discussions can be postponed to. So if a debate takes too much time. And we have a short overview what is to follow, which could be abused for other stuff, if we need the time.
Krishna: There is also a talk... ???
Muriel: Since many delegates have to leave on Sunday, there won't be any key discussions about status tomorrow in the afternoon. So there will just be some talks.
Krishna: Let me remind you, that we asked for authorization of some kind.
Krishna: We have some papersheets for the motions. You write your name, your party, and mark whether you are a delegate. You state which part of the statutes draft you want to change. Then specifiy what to change. And give justification why you want to do it. And sign it. And if you think there is not enough time, you can also state so, then we can handle it later on.
Julia: Everybody can file a motion, but only delegates can vote upon them.
Krishna: No you cannot send it by mail, you have to use the sheets.
Krishna: We started in May with the sessions for writing the statutes. ??? The program group tries to identify common program. The kickoff was in the middle of May. Some of the points we discussed: Non-decentralized founding meeting, because otherwise there will be legal meetings. It was then proposed we have another meeting in Aarau and the PPs were invited. Now, what do we need in the statutes: We looked in other parties statutes and identified topics we needed to cover. Also in May Euroliquid was first mentioned. In Arrau there was a RL meeting and several points were discussed. For example: The PPEU should not have its own candidate list for the elections, because it's not legal. We want membership only for independent parties, which might be regional. There it was proposed a one-chamber system of delegates. And mentions of another conference in November. And we proposed the second meeting for the founding conference in january. We discussed the various options for seats. Luxemburg, Brussels, Sweden. ... and a killswitch, a mechanism which ensures that if there are paneuropean election, that PPEU does not block the creation of a grassroots democracy organization. So we wanted to ensure that PPEU transforms or ceases to exist, if paneuropean elections become real. ????? And there are three member types: Council, Congress, Board. And a kind of killswitch. And we identified that for the killswitch, the conditions are very complicated. And we started discussing voting-weights for the delegates.
Krishna: ???? We discussed what the PPEU can and cannot do. ??? And the first launch [of euroliquid] is with the version 2. We continued working on the goals, and found 8 better worded objectives. We introduced the euroliquid and the delegate chamber into the discussion, and we had a more refined version of the statutes. Martina Pöser from Germany did it. There are some aspects we wanted to have. There is an idea of capping the effort which can go to administrative stuff. We would not be able to have a meeting like this again, but would need to use some time on politics. ??? So this is basically what we have discussed in the previous 3 months at a very high level. The PPEU will not create its own program, only identify what is already there. There will be some inclusion of the euroliquid. We will have independent regional parties. But we will start with a 1 chamber system. We are probably going to have voting weights, but it's not clear which ones yet.
Krishna: Any questions?
Krishna: Actually, it was supposed that Martina will join today and explain the statutes. But I can do a little bit. I has several chapters, including a large preamble. Then Provisions. We identified Belgium as the best country for a seat and we have an offer from Amelia for a concrete office. There are some legal rules, like you have to follow the belgian laws.
Krishna: Our working language is english. We can translate, but in case of conflict, the english version prevails.
Julia: The only exception might be the statutes, we might have to translate the statutes to frensh or ??? to make it legally binding in Belgium.
Krishna: Some more legal things. PPEU will be represented by its board or its chairman. They will have limited liability according to their tasks.
Julia: In the principles: We are trying to become a european party. That we want to take into account the opinions of individual pirates in the member parties. But its not detailed how. ??? The PPEU does not interfere with the members policies in their own countries. They keep their sovereignity completely. I think these are the most important points in the principles. Of course, follow democratic rules in the PPEU and so on...
Krishna: Then we have the objectives. A major goal is close working relations with each other and other relevant groups at similar levels. Then we want to identify common programs on the european level and obviously we want them ultimately be implemented in law. We want to work in election campaigns and support parties where possible. We want to organize paneuropean events, to further the pirate movement. We want to establish the movement in the public's eye, ??? and entire europe. The PPEU can be the voice and broadcaster for the parties policies. The PPEU can not speak for a single party, but for the group of the parties.
Julia: We propose 5 different types of membership: Ordinary Members, national Parties in Countries which are in the EU. 2) Associate Members, pirate parties of nations which are not in the EU, but geographically located in europe. Any of the countries bordering the EU and so on. They also have full voting rights. They don't have voting rights about EU stuff. ??? 3) Observer Members, for example regional parties, which are subordinate to a higher party. ??? Any regional party which is part of a national party can only become observer member. They can participate in discussions, but not vote. 4) Supporting Members, this is the only type which is not an organization. A supporting member can be anybody who is not a member of a Party which is a member. As you know, in order to get funding, a european party needs elected representatives in a quarter of the european countries. For example an indipendent in the EU parliament of a country where there is no pirate party. ??? Basically, supporting members, individual members, are only members as long as they are not a member of a pirate party. Just like observer members they can discuss, and we still need to decide if they get to vote. ??? 5) Special Members, the european youth organization, which might be founded in the future, the other type is the group of pirates in the EU parliament. We will go through the rights and criteria you have to fulfil as a member, and their obligations, and right. ??? We'll discuss this for every proposed type of member. ???
Julia: We also have a proposal how new members can get accepted and how members can get expulsed, but we will discuss this in detail later.
Julia: Then the organs. 1) The Council, which is delegates from all the member parties, and of course without voting rights all other member types. 2) The Board. This is the executive and does the day to day work. We propose it has 3 persons at least. ??? 3) The Pirate Chamber, this is optional. We had this discussion about PPEU should be a member based or party based organization. ??? If PPEU makes it own political program, then it should have individual members. ??? But every nation votes for themselves and sends people to the EU parliament. But there are some discussions, that there should be european parties, that someone from italy could vote for somebody in sweden. ??? If elections for the EU parliament get changed in the way that there are paneuropean election, then there needs to be a pirate chamber which votes on this list of candidates, because delegates should not vote on this, as it wouldn't be direct democracy. ???? So this chamber gets created in case of paneuropean elections, or if we need to create a political program which goes beyond what the national parties already have. ???
Krishna: As we go further, it becomes less and less detailed as we haven't finished everything yet. The parties can appoint delegates and name candidates for the board. And the delegates will vote among those candidates. We want to have more than 1 party in the board. But this will not be a hard rule. And we want to start with a 1 year election period. Ordinary and Associate Members have voting rights, so they will vote.
Krishna: Finance stuff: The EU does some funding, but we need to have fees from the participating members. The EU would finance up to 85%, so 15% needs to come from us anyway. We want to have a base fee and a variable part. Depending on size or some other criteria.
Julia: I think the most important point is: The board does the day to day financial stuff, but the council makes a yearly budget plan, and the board has to follow it. And the council absolves the board if they abided by that plan. Then there is a lot of legal stuff, which has to be in there because we want to apply for EU funding. And then there are some rules for co-organized events. For example PPEU and a member party want to have a common event, then the PPEU can at most pay 50% of that event. ??? Also, the council decides whether such an event happens with PPEU support.
Julia: Then some rules, that there can be reimbursements. Delegates have to travel, if the finances of the organization allow it, we can reimburse them.
Julia: Then there is an auditing, which is a legal requirement. We have to appoint someone from the auditors institute to look through our finances. The other stuff is also mostly legal.
Krishna: We have a first proposal on how to change the statutes: By majority vote, not by consensus. 2/3 of the votes cast. And 2/3 must also be present.
Julia: In a meeting of a council, where less than 2/3 are present, you cannot change the statutes, but you can invite to a new meeting where it can be changed without 2/3.
Julia: Except for the goal of the organization, they can be only changed by unanimous vote. ????
Krishna: We set PPEU up for an infinite period, i.e. until we disolve it. And if that happens the council will organize the unrolling. ???
Krishna: ???? Within 3 months we'll have a real founding conference, where we will actually create the organization.
Julia: Basically, we'll be going through these topics point by point. I'll start with Objectives. We should first agree on what PPEU should do, then discuss how to achive it.
Krishna: Are we ready to vote?
Stefan: I don't know about the remote delegates.
Julia: First, I'll present, what is in the whole paragraph, all objectives, then I'll open the discussion. Then once the discussion concludes, you can file motions to change the text and we can decide on either to approve the whole text, or if people are against that, we can vote on every bullet point. We do not vote on the final text of the statutes, because it needs to be cleared with a lawyer. ???? And you will get the exact text once its ready.
Stefan: We have a simple majority vote for everything. And of course the remote delegates can also vote. There are procedural motions, so you can ask, that ... actually I'll read that. Request to speak: You raise your hand. If you have a procedural motion, make this sign [Timeout-Hand-Motion]. Change Order of the Agenda, Table a Motion, Suspend the Meeting, Limit of Speakers in General, Close the Debate everyone who has raised his hand can still speak, Straw Poll i.e. a non-binding vote, Modify a Motion, Reelect the Chairman, Change the Rules of Procedure, Assess the Quorum. We have a quorum of 1/4 of the accredidet delegates, without the quorum we can't proceed. That's basically the important things.
Julia: We should have a practice run.
Krishna: Let's try it.
Stefan: PM to Assess the Quorum.
Julia: We are voting on whether more than 1/4 of the delegates are present.
Stefan: It doesn't matter what you vote, you just need to be present. Who is present?
Max: Lift only one card. Not all three.
Krishna: We will not vote on the literal wording. We vote on what you see here.
Comment: Can we create a pad?
Discussion, it's unclear what should be in the pad.
Muriel: Excuse me.
Julia: So we will vote on the text on the slide.
Discussion about how correct names and party association gets into the protocol.
Julia: So, in the meantime, can I have your attention please. While he's preparing his motion, and it makes sense to get one or two people helping max, because if he needs to write the exact voting of every delegate down, he needs help.
Krishna: We need a second camera, or we should move the camera.
Julia: It's very hard in real time.
Krishna: If he wants to have it filmed, move the camera.
Muriel: He doesn't know what we are voting on.
Julia: We can record, who votes what, but...
Julia: We need one more volunteer for the counting of the votes.
Krishna: If we go through a chapter, we will show an overview, then go through the bullet points on later slides.
Krishna: Once you vote, your vote cannot be changed. If you miss the vote, this also cannot be changed. If a motion is proposed, you can propose countermotions.
Krishna: Test Run.
Krishna: Let's vote on: "I understood the procedures and know what the green voting cards are for."
Tom Vymazal: All the votings are to be done publicly with each vote assigned to its respective voter.
Gregory: I want to file a counter-motion, that a delegate can request an explicit inclusion into the protocol of their voting.
Krishna: [Repeats this.]
Krishna: We vote on the first motion.
Krishna: This is passed.
Julia: [Gets new motion sheet.] This is not a motion. ... Ok, it is a motion.
Daniele: In a few minutes I can set up a policy in euroliquid to assist with the voting in this assembly. Because it can be easily voted and recorded in the euroliquid platform. This is a way to avoid the ??? we can use this tool, we create a euroliquid for this assembly and you can use it.
Daniele: "In few minutes I can setup "5 min. policy in Euroliquid to assist assembly votations."
Comment: We can use euroliquid later.
Julia: There was the idea that every delegate gets a number and writes it on each card.
Muriel: What if you write "PPXY" then you don't have to transform it each time.
Krishna: We have a short break of 15 minutes.
Discussion of the length of the break, 15 minutes prevails.
Krishna: There is a motion to assess the quorum.
Krishna: This is enough. Then we make a test for an actual vote.
Motion: "At each voting, any party can request that their vote is stated explicitly in the minutes."
Krishna: We are already...
Krishna: Who wants to be noted publicly in the minutes?
Julia: We do a vote. After the vote we ask who wants to be recorded.
Tom: There were 5 parties against this proposal, so they will want to be recorded every time.
Krishna: Then, we'll start with the actual voting. We'll start with the objectives.
Julia: First of all, I'll give you an overview. Then I'll ask you to comment. If everybody is happy, you don't have to say something. ??? Please try to keep your speach short. Then we do the motions to change and they can be discussed as well.
Julia: The first objective is to improve the working relations between its members and with parties with similar goals who are not members. ???? The PPEU does not write its own program, but identifies the common points in its members. Then it tries to implement these policies into law. 4) coordinating election campaings on request of the member parties. Whenever the member parties want the PPEU to help them coordinating. 5) organizing paneuropean conventions. 6) to serve as a contact for the european istitutions and other people who want to talk to pirates 7) establish the pirate movement in the public eye in europe. 8) ????
Julia: Does anyone want to file a motion?
Comment: I miss an objective: In case of conflict, for example if for local reasons, some party has local opinions. ???
Julia: If there is an opinion which is different from the other parties. ???
Comment: The common program should not be a dictation of programmes for the other parties. ???
Julia: The PPEU should not overrule the individual parties. This is in the statutes, but not in the objectives.
Julia: The objectives currently only state "Identify ???"
[Had to close the door.]
Comment: Conflicts is possible, and it should be pointed out in the objectives.
Julia: When we talk about decision making, we can talk about the question whether the program must be unanimous.
Comment: When we say "Party Members" we restrict the objectives to party members. And maybe in the future, we will have individual members.
Julia: We are not voting on the statutes, we are voting on the bullet points.
Comment: It would be ???? PPEU is not a party. It is a non-profit, so it can participate in citizen initiatives.
Julia: Don't you think this is covered in "striving to implement these policies in the eu law".
Julia: Generally its good to keep the wording broad. So any kind of support for our policies would be covered. Including citizens initiative.
Daniele: Even if it is indended, but can we explain the objective that PPEU will support the establishment of the pirate parties all over europe. Via media and other ways of supporting. ???
Julia: "To support the founding of new pirate parties in europe."?
Daniele: "... and grow."
Matthias: I am obviously sweden. We had a discussion about objectives in Potsdam. I advocated that less is more. ??? There we had "Work for the interest of its members.". This was apparently dropped. ??? So my motion is kill all these objectives and replace them with "Work for the interest of its members." This would be my motion.
Comment: "Strive to implement that policies." already includes a lot of the lower objectives.
Julia: So you agree with his motion. He just analyzed the problem.
Krishna: The idea was, of course the PPEU would work in the interest of its members. But at the same time, to say, "in our interest" does not really say anything. Which is in a way a good thing, we can do whatever we want, but it is also possible to change the statutes. ??? Then people can say, this is good or not good, ??? but it should be as complete as possible in my opinion.
Matthias: I like to discuss. I clearly agree that there should be more objectives than just "work in the interest", but the other list should not be in the statutes, but be set by the council. Having statutes staying constant over time is a good thing.
Muriel: We could also add rules and objectives, but we don't have to write it in the statutes.
Julia: Any more discussion? No.
Julia: There is a third motion from the remote delegates: "To have a pirate party from each EU country as a member."
Julia: If this motion by Matthias is accepted, we will not vote on the other motions.
Motion by Mattias: "Replace all objectives with: 'Work in the interest of its members.'"
Julia: Since this motion was passed, the others will not be voted upon.
Krishna: We are done with the objectives. We'll meet at 14:00.
Julia: This is the overview of the draft proposal, the name should be european pirate party or ???? "PPEU" or "PIRATES" and an annex would list official translations of PPEU to various languages. Then the organization will be founded in belgium. It would mean that the seat would be in belgium, and the office could be set up in brussels. Martina also made this draft of the statutes taking into account the belgian law. We have an offer for the exact address of the seat, which would be the office of Amelia. Then we talked about the language earlier. English is the working language. That means that if you file a motion, it has to be translated into english. Except legal requirements. The chairperson would be the representative also in front of the law. And there is limited liability. Boardmembers are only liable for damages they have done within they mandate. First topic is the name. This is pretty straightforward. Is there any discussion?
Paul: Everyone knows we are a party. So we can just leave "party".
Comment: We have the same problem here.
Matthias: The proposal is to have all these names, so you can just choose one.
Matic: We have basically the same problem.
Julia: You don't have to use the short version "PIRATES", but you can of course have a motion that the short name is always PPEU.
Comment: If we have different names, it's a mess.
Matthias: It's not a mess. It's a beautiful thing. The others also have various names. The greens, "European Greens" but "european green party" is the correct name, they only need it if they want to diversify from the parliament group. ??? We should not translate "PIRATES" or "PPEU". Have the names translated, but not the abbreviations.
Julia: So, file your motions and make it say "plus translations of the names".
Julia: There will be two options: To accept it as it is, or to accept the motion which says that only the long names will be translated.
Comment: "European Pirate Party" shall be removed. It should be "European Pirates" only. ???
Comment: When we are in the european election, a common name will create a strong brand.
Julia: We have three alternatives, as-is and two motions: to remove "european pirate party" from the list, and only translate the long names.
Gregory: Does as-is mean, all of the names concurrently?
Gregory: I propose "; DROP DATABASE; --"
Julia: You don't have to use all of them, but you can use any of them. So the comission can decide how they address us.
Daniele: In Italy all the media will talk about the pirates. They will always translate, regardless of whether we want it. If we want to create a strong brand, it should be "european pirates". It can collect all ???
Krishna: We are a group of parties, not an individual membership organization, this speaks for ????
Comment: All the members are european pirates. Everyone will translate it, but it always mean the same. Pirates means humans and people. Party is more like organization, corrective. So we should only have pirates.
Comment: Its members will be pirate parties. So its a little bit ironic that we call us "european pirates" for an organization which is a collective of parties.
Julia: If we have both names as possibilities, we can use the "european pirates" once we have the pirate chamber. But this is for official documents only.
Jack: We should keep the "Pirate Parties" to distinguish between the all pirates and the official organization. "European Pirates" is a bit ambiguous.
Comment: When we started working on european pirates, many people wanted a two chamber system, but for technical reasons, this will not be possible. But the objective in the meanterm is still that. So we will be anyway the european pirates. The current organization is just the minimal structure, but we have this midterm goal. ??? We make no coalitions, we make nothing which dilutes the branding. If you read the same name one million times its much better than if you read two names 500k times.
Krishna: Maybe there are countries which prefer "pirate parties". ???
Comment: ??? All over europe, we will be different than the others. Everyone knows that we are a political party. If we want to do the same as the others, ??? No. Close to the people. Let's scrap the "party". ??? I want that PPEU is very close to people.
Julia: We have a motion to close the speaking list. If you pass this, only the one person who had raised his hand may still speak.
Julia: Motions can go directly to vote.
Matthias: But if you want a discussion?
Stefan: There is just never discussion about procedural vote.
Matthias: I in general dislike when people close the discussion list. If people try to keep people short, it makes people angry, and then they talk longer. Like I might do now. ??? There will be more than one name anyway. If those names are different anyway, then why not allow the parties to choose which term they wanted translated.
Comment: ... but ...
Matthias: You could have stated that, if only the discussion list would not have been closed. Sucks to be you. ??? For us it makes sense to be "the european pirate party" when discussing with official organizations, but be the "european pirates" when talking to people. ???
Julia: Motion: Strike "The european pirate party."
Motion: Only "European Pirates" and only "PPEU".
Julia: "To strike the 'european pirate party' and strike 'PIRATES'".
Comment: A party at the european level can only be funded if you have representatives in 7 parliaments.
Julia: In order to become a european party, you have to have members in the EU parliament or elected representatives on at lesat a regional level. But this draft is for an organization which aims to become a party. When we reach this goal of the elected representatives, then this organization will try to become registered as a party.
Krishna: Vote on by Paul: "Only one name 'european pirates' only one abbreviation 'PPEU'."
Julia: The motion has not passed. Then we have the vote like it is on the slide right now.
Julia: This will be the final vot.
Krishna: "The European Pirate Party", "European Pirates", "PPEU", "PIRATES" plus the translations into the respective languages.
Julia: We have the names.
Comment CAT: Has anyone checked the belgian law on whether you can have multiple names?
Julia: I think Martina has checked all of the draft against belgian law.
Julia: Then onto the seat. One proposal is to have the seat in belgium. I open the discussion.
Julia: Does anyone want to say something?
Comment: Why Belgium? Because of the EU parliament?
Julia: Legally, there has to be a seat. If we say it is in belgium, the organization is under belgian law. We cannot tie it to the EU parliament.
Matthias: The seat of the EU Parliament is Brussels, Luxemburg and Strassbourg. This would be complicated. ??? ALso Belgium is a great country, i love it, especially the wheather.
Comment: Do we have a guarantee that the seat remains over time?
Julia: There are two things we have to decide on: Where the seat should be, like in which country. And then which specific address.
Gregory: We should distinct here the seat of the organization and the office. We can have the seat anywhere in the world and as the represantative of Kazachstan I offer to host in in Kazachstan. But as an EU organization it should have a seat within the EU. But it can still have multiple offices.
Matthias: From a pragmatic point of view, it would make sense to have the seat in the country where we want to hire people. ??? If we plan to have anyone hired, it would make sense to have the seat in the same country.
Comment: The PPI is also founded on belgian law, but they are acting everywhere. It is just a question of legislation. ???
Julia: Does anyone want to file a motion?
Daniele: I think that belgium and Brussels is a good choice, because even the parliamentarians... ???
Julia: For next time, please raise your hand before we end the discussion.
Daniele: ... even geographically, because Belgium is in the middle of europe and can be easily reached from each country. For the european seat of the pirate party, brussel is also the easiest way for the people to choose the natural country, sweden or germany or other countries, ????
Julia: I have closed the discussion. But there is at least one motion, and then we can discuss the motion.
Motion by Ukraine: "Seat in Luxembourg."
Gregory: There have been objections that the belgians do not publish their laws in the internet. So you actually need to buy juristical literature. Luxembourg is better, they also have a very european legislation, and there are examples of european parties established in luxembourg. And Jerry Weyer is a lawyer and in Luxembourg. ??? PPI is registered in Belgium and they saw some issues with registration, ??? For example in Belgium everything to do with associations has to be approved by the king. The Pirate Parties don't support Monarchy.
Comment: business.belgium.be has the english translations of the laws. ???? Its way cheaper to fly into belgium than into luxembourg. And why are they not here, btw.?
Krishna: The accessibility of the belgian law: Martina apparently has it in book form, so this would not pose a problem.
Jack: In Luxembourg, what are the languages you can have your statutes in? The fact that the statutes have to be translated even though it is different from the working language of the organization. ????
Gregory: This is a rumour. In Belgium you cannot have untranslated statutes. According to the notary who did the translation for the PPI. ??? It is either french or flaemish. THis is quite the same for Luxembourg. But we have people who can do it, and it would only needed once in a while.
Comment CAT: The belgian pirate party is running for elections on 4th of October, and announcing our seat there would be a nice media boost.
Gregory: Luxembourg publishes Laws in German in legally binding form, but Jerry said, statutes still need to be translated to french.
Gregory: Since I know that there are some German speaking people in belgium. Could we in theory deposit the statutes in German?
Comment BE: German is an official language, so presumably.
Motion by Tom: "The seat of the european pirate party is to be situated in brussels."
Julia: Right now we are not voting on amelias office. We are only voting on the country where we are founding. So this motion belongs to the next topic.
Discussion about what is currently the topic.
Krishna: When we decide for Belgium, this motion applies in the next topic, then it will handled.
Gregory: Motion for a Straw-Poll.
Julia: White for Belgium, Red for Luxembourg. And afterwards we make a second vote where we decide.
Julia: We still have to vote on the motion.
Krishna: "Seat in Luxembourg."
Krishna: Now we vote on the actual proposal: "The Party seat is in belgium."
Julia: We have a seat.
Julia: I would like to expand on this. The proposal is that the seat is at this address and that the council can move the seat by a simple majority vote within belgium.
Comment CAT: But we need the address in the statutes?
Matthias: I like the address. It's close to where I work. This address is inside the european parliament. There is another, better address which is outside the parliament, where the belgian pirates hang out.
Comment: We realized that we can have a seat in the statues without a concrete address.
Comment: If we change this address to another of Amelias addresses, is she aware of it and is it ok?
Matthias: Yes, she is aware of it, and one reason for having an office outside the parliament was to have more pirates benefiting from it.
Julia: "Rue Gerard, Etabeck"
Julia: We first vote ...
Krishna: "The seat should be 'Rue Gerard 47a, 1040 Etterbeek" this is the outside-of-parliament office. We vote.
Julia: "The party is founded under belgian law."
Julia: Since everyone voted the same, no need for recording.
Julia: "English is the working language" There can be translations, but the english version will be the binding one.
Comment: If you found under belgian law, you have to put the statutes in french.
Julia: If you make a motion for example to the council, there has to be an english translation. The members have a right to read the motions to the council in english. But the french or belgian translation of the statutes will still be legally binding.
Matthias: I believe the greens do things right sometimes. And they have "if the statutes in french and in english diverge, the english version prevails." This is apparently possibly under belgian law.
Julia: Then even for the statutes, english would be the binding version.
Comment: There is no problem whatsoever within the organization, but when it comes to local organizations, the english version can never be binding, you can not bind them on a translation. ??? The translation is binding, no! For the legal bits, but from the group vs. its parts it is not binding. When it comes to the core of a discussion, I do not want to argue against stuff I do not fully understand.
Stefan: The Council can not vote on stuff not every member understands. They have to vote on something they understand, and bindingly.
Daniele: This is not a proposal of an official language. This is a proposal of an unofficial language, which is Esparanto. It is the pirate second language. We could insert, maybe for fun, that esparanto is an unofficial language.
Julia: Only official things go into the statutes.
Comment: I would like to propose French, but I wont. But I understand that everyone needs to understand everything. But sometimes English is too general, "free" as in freedom, but also about prices. ??? If we use words which have multiple meanings in other languages, we somehow should check the rest of the statutes, that no such problems occurr.
Comment: For example "Country" can be "Nation", "Region with strong identity". And until we know what these words mean exactly, we can not really agree. ???
Julia: This is something that the lawyers that do the final draft will try to take into account. Law is basically exactly that. Also there is a section in the general provisions, that "a pragmatic approach should be taken when interpreting the statutes" ??? So the court of arbitration will have to interpret the statutes in the light what we have meant.
Krishna: Voting on "English is the working language. And the language of the official documents. Other languages allowed, but the english is the binding version".
Julia: The Council represents the association. But there has to be a person to do it. And this is the Chairperson. The board binds the PPEU for day to day management, so they can for example buy paper for the office, since it's day to day management.
Daniele: The council is the main organ. It's not the board that binds PPEU. The council decides and the board executes. We can have a dictatorship of the board, which cannot be destroyed by the council. It's very dangerous.
Krishna: This is day to day management. This means the dictatorship would be to buy papers, not doing political stuff.
Daniele: ???? The council must make the decision.
Comment FR: In France we have a mechanism, where a member which misbehaves, the council could end the board term prematurely.
Julia: There is a budget plan in the draft and at the end of the year there is an auditing, and the council has to absolve the board. And if the board spends money on bullshit, they are liable for it.
Comment CZ: The Council is the legislative body, and the board is the executive. I'll write a motion, that "PPEU will be represented by the council". ???
Julia: We are just talking along the bullet points.
Daniele: "The council is the supreme authority of PPEU and has full decision power." The third point is "Internal Regulations are decided by the council and adopted by the board." So the board binds PPEU according to the council decision.
Gregory: The council rperesents the member parties ??? there might one day be another chamber ??? this decision might limit our options later on.
Matthias: I agree with everything that italy said. But everything you want is already there. You just want to make it more clear, but it doesn't help, because it's
Jack: ???? If the board is chosen by the council, then why not also represent PPEU?
Julia: The Council is still the highest authority. This might get eroded a bit if the Board represents PPEU.
Comment: If the chairperson takes wrong decisions, and the council says: Don't take this decisions. Then what? ???
Julia: Later, when we talk about the board, we'll have to discuss how the council can remove somebody from the board. Legally they would be liable, if they do things against the decisions of the council ???
Comment BE: Non-profit organizations in Belgium have to have a board, and the board must obey to the council at least anually. This is just the law.
Julia: Since we are approaching lunch-time, please keep yourself short.
Gregory: Can the chairman take a sole decision without talking with the board. In that case I would say, the board is representing the council. ???
Julia: Then you also have to specify whether the board has to take the decision unanimously .???? I understand this to say that the chairman can go to court alone and represent the organization.
Krishna: For the council, the chairperson would go to court.
Krishna: And the board can do management to keep stuff going.
Daniele: Currently it says. The council represents PPEU for juridical acts, and only for them. And the chairman represents the council. But everything else would be a task of a board.
Daniele: We all agree on how it should be, but it is not written there. It is just speaking, but we have to write it.
Krishna: We have two motions: "Replace Chairman by Chairperson", "The Council is the supreme authority of PPEU, with full juridical power and represesnts PPEU"
Daniele: I ask here to add "... and has full decision power and represents PPEU for juridical acts".
Julia: And keep the other points?
Daniele: Just add this simple phrase.
Julia: About the chairperson thing, some people might object with "chairman", so let's skip that discussion.
Jack: In PPI this has caused some discussion on whether the council can overrule the statutes. We should avoid the term "supreme".
Krishna: Motion by Daniele: "The Council is the supreme authority of PPEU, has full decision power and represents PPEU for juridical acts."
Krishna: "Replace 'chairman' by 'chairperson'"
Krishna: We have two procedural motions before lunch.
Motion by Gregory: "Art 8, 7: amended by 'Motion has passed if nobody has talked against it.'"
Krishna: So far, we have only asked whether someone wants to speak. We would then also ask whether someone is against it.
Julia: This is just about the procedural motion to close the speaking list. ???
Motion by Gregory: "Art 8, 7: amended by 'Motion has passed if nobody has talked against it.'"
Motion by Gregory: "Add a procedural Motion: 'Reopen the speaking list.' If the speaking list is currently closed, a passing of this motion would reopen the speaking list again."
Krishna: We have not finished everything yet. But it doesn't make sense to start a new topic now.
Muriel: We started half an our late. We do an 1 hour lunchbreak, so we meet here again at 15:30.
Krishna: I would then like to assess the quorum.
Julia: How's the stream doing? Getting ready?
Julia: We printed new motion sheets, so you can now file more motions.
Krishna: All sit down please. We'd like to continue. SILENCE PLEASE.
Krishna: Motion for quorum. Would all the delegates please hold up their voting cards.
Krishna: I propose that after membership we'll do finances. Because we actually have to prepare the rest.
Julia: So, if you agree with moving the finances forward, raise the green card, otherwise red.
Julia: We're now doing the principles. There are some things we don't have to vote on, like that we're a democratic organization, but some stuff we do have to vote on. If we want to become a european party, we have to have a common manifesto. It can only consist of the common points in the pirate programs. ???? Since it is a legal requirement, voting against it would mean that we would not become a party. So maybe, we can skip the discussion.
Krishna: "The members of the association shall adopt a common manifest which shall reflet the principles and policies of the european pirate movement.
Julia: The next thing. One is "the PPEU does not interfere with the relations between the delegate and the delegates parties." and "the PPEU does not interfere with the sovereignity of its members". Discussions? Any Motions? Doesn't seem to be the case.
Krishna: [Repeats slide]
Comment CAT: These are two different topics. We had a problem once with a delegate who dropped emails for example.
Krishna: Who wants to vote separately, please hold up your cards.
Krishna: Now we vote separately. "The PPEU does not interfere with the relations between a delegate and the delegate's party"
Krishna: We will now vote the other one, "PPEU will not interfere with the sovereignity of its members."
Julia: Then we're done with general provisions and move on to membership.
Julia: The proposal is this 5 member model, but there are some general things regardning membership, we can discuss. In the proposal there are two criteria, an absolute one: minimum 10 members, but they have to come from a quarter of the EU countries. In order to become recognized as a european party you have to have members from a quarter from the EU countries. This is why one of the types of memberships we propose is individual membership, but only if there's not yet a pirate party.
Julia: Then there is the question of who can become a member. Basically only legal persons, who then appoint natural persons as a delegate. The 5 categories: 1) Ordinary Members, 2) Associate members, don't have to be established as a party, they can also be from outside the EU. Ordinary and Associate members have the same rights, but only the ordinary members vote on EU specific matters. Then Observing members, they cannot vote. They can participate in the discussions, but cannot table amendmends. Then Special Members who are just like Ordinary Members. ????
Julia: And about Fees, ???
Julia: The minimum Number of members will be first, the proposal is 10 members, anyone wants to comment on that?
Daniele: ???? The european country Spain will have two members?
Julia: PP-CAT and PP-ES would count as two members, but when checking for the 1/4 country rule, they only count once.
Daniele: I am afraid about possible fake-parties, like happened in italy. With these statutes, they could join the PPEU.
Julia: There is a list of criteria a member must fulfil, maybe this belongs there.
Jack: By countries you mean "european member states"?
Comment: Can we formulate this requirement in such a way that it automatically follows the european law if it is ever changed? If we are already bound by law, why state it?
Comment CAT: I guess fulfilling this requirement would be enough, even it is not within the statutes.
Krishna: The question is, what should happen when you fall below that number.
Julia: If we pass this, we cannot found PPEU with less than 10 members.
Comment GAL: We are working towards a confederation of PPs within spain. So we'll have only one vote then anyway.
Matthias: If we are less than 10 members, we'll try to aquire more members. The 10 member rule is just to get funding, not to exist. This only puts up blocks for us, it gives us no benefit. It only stops less than 10 members from founding this organization. Scrap it all.
Comment BE: Put minimum 10 Countries maybe?
Julia: You would like to keep a requirement?
Julia: The reasoning is that maybe 10 is too high, but there should be one. Otherwise you have an organization with say just 2 members, say Germany and Switzerland, calling themselves "european pirate party".
Gregory: There might be a minimum number regarding to belgian law, but this is already regulated for us. Would we need a minimum which is higher than the legally required. The only point I can see is that we want to avoid the situiation where there are multiple european pirate parties. If you have many members in one party, there are less to found another one.
Krishna: There is somewhere that a majority of 2/3 can kick out other members. ???
Matthias: Whoever wants to kick out all other parties will be smart enough to first change the statutes. The same with two sets of "european pirates". We cannot put this into our statutes. These regulations don't give us anything but trouble. So I file a Motion: "To scrap it all.".
Comment: Why not a single party per country?
Comment CAT: One of the later points says that a member must be independent of the others. ???
Discussion about the wisdom of having the statutes only be changeable by unanimous vote.
Motion: "Delete the number requirements entirely."
Motion: "Reduce the minimum to 3."
Krishna: We will first vote on the scrap it all.
Motion: "Scrap the number of member requirements entirely."
Krishna: This has passed, we'll not vote on the other one.
Julia: The next one is quite important. It says that all members except supporting members which are individual persons, everybody else are legal entities or appoint a person to act in its name. This would be for the time being. If at some point we come to the chamber of pirates, then we would have to modify this to allow a chamber of individual member or have a new type of membership.
Comment: What happens if some country decides to illegalize some party?
Julia: As I understand it, yes. And illegal party could not be a member.
Comment CAT: But we have parties in PPI which are not registered.
Daniele: While I was reading the statutes. If the supporting members are the lobbyist? It looks like this and should be avoided.
Julia: The point is that if an individual who is elected into some parliament, can join the association.
Julia: We can have this as a requirement for supporting members, but this requires no change here.
Daniele: Which type of members go into the chamber of pirates?
Julia: We would need to add a new member type.
Matthias: I suggest we look at this paragraph after all the other membership paragraphs.
Julia: If everybody agrees, we can move this to later.
Julia: Now to the types of Membersships. There has been the idea to create a new type for individual members.
Comment CAT: We would like to have individual members as soon as possible. But we don't need to put everything we need later into the statutes now.
Julia: When we create the chamber of pirates, we'll probably need to change the statutes anyway. For now what we'll be voting on is if we want to have these 5 types of membership in principle. What the details of these are will be voted later.
Daniele: If we don't implement the chamber of pirates, we run the risk that the euroliquid project will run outside the PPEU. We risk to have 2 entities within the next months which are not connected.
Julia: The draft proposal mentions the chamber of pirates. We can leave it out here, and state under which circumstances the chamber of pirates needs to be created.
Matthias: In sweden we don't use liquid democracy. In this process there has always been a discussion whether liquid democracy should be a part of PPEU or not. In Potsdam I argued for separating. They are not compatible. ??? There should be an exchange between these two entities, but they don't mix easily. There is no problem if there are two entities furthering the pirate agenda. I'd like 20 even more. ??? Don't put a chamber of pirates in this organization. 5 types of members is a handful, it's perfect.
Comment FR: Be careful if you talk about liquid democracy not to confuse it with concrete tools. The name "supporting member" is maybe not the best one, because a supporting member sounds like "i like it, i want to support it". But what it is, is that it's someone who wants to be a member but cannot join a national party. ??? And maybe it'll be a special status without many right. ??? Don't use "Supporting" in the name?
Julia: Do you have an alternative?
Comment CAT: There are some parties which work with liquid or direct democracy. Iceland is not here today. They don't even have a Board. They are the most democratic party ever. We would also like to push forward any kind of direct or liquid democracy experiment on the european level. ??? If a member party wants to make the internal decision like 70/30, they should be able to split their vote as well.
Matthias: I was seeing the supporting members as the elected representatives only. I propose to allow nobody else. It would be very weird to have people as members directly, this would remove an incentive to create a national party.
Stefan: To France: What is the purpose of having members with no rights?
Comment FR: This is how I understood supporting members. Maybe the meaning of the word is not what the actual statutes make of it.
Daniele: Also in Italy, we don't have a board. ??? Euroliquid is platform independent. Whatever Tool we want for te chamber of the pirates, we can use. There are many good tools. This is just a choice. But we need to say, that if we want to let all pirates of europe collaborate together, we need a tool. We can not get all of them together in Amelias boeuro. ??? I think this is a service and an effort, this is the difference from the other parties. Of course, we all know, the best success of the pirate parties has been reached in Germany just because they use a participatory democracy tool. This is an option over the traditional parties.
Comment FR: My remark about LD is that the people who cast votes should stay secret. But if you want secret votes in an electronic platform, it's very hard to get a verifiable result. ???? In a real election, you vote not in the main city, but in your local office. ??? The public votes are a price we would need to pay. ??? Even Germany does not use the platform to vote, they vote in the general assembly. This is why LD should not be mixed up with a concrete tool.
Jack: We definitely have to make sure that we don't box ourselves in by specifying a tool in the statutes. I don't think we should be putting in there that we will use a certain tool. Having more than 5 categories of members ... 5 is a good number, get their heads around, know where the members are part of. If you make it more complicated, it'll cause problems down the line.
Matthias: I love to discuss LD at these meetings, it is a very rewarding use of my time. But we can do this later when talking about the pirate chamber. But now, we could just decide on the number of member types.
Comment: The EU working group of PPDE told me not to waste time on LD discussions.
Comment: It makes sense to divide the discussion system from the decision system. In a decision system, there is a question of power. And the discussion systems needs to be powerless, so everybody can participate in the discussion. One system can be controlled by the other system. We want all the input of all the members, and have a discussion. Anybody can join the discussion. ???
Julia: Also, our proposal for the preamble says that the PPEU should take the opinions of the pirates into account.
Daniele: Apart from the name of the tool, which we can decide later, in Italy we solved the problem of secret votes ....
Krishna: ... this has nothing to do with the membership types.
Motions: "Change 'Supporting' to 'Parliamentarian'."
Motion: "Only elected representatives of regional, national or european level can become a supporting member."
Julia: If I hear 'Supporting Member' I think that's just someone who pays fees and stuff. ????
Motion: "Exchange 'Supporting' into 'Extraordinary'".
Matthias: In Sweden on the regional level you are not a parliamentarian. But they'd still like to be extraordinary members.
Julia: This will not be a problem really.
Cry by Gregory: What about 'Gang Members!'
Motion: "Change 'Supporting' to 'Parliamentarian'"
Motion: "Change 'Parliamentarian' to 'Extraordinary'"
Julia: If you want to have the 5 types Ordinary, Associate, Observer, Parliamentarian, Special.
Daniele: I didn't understand the difference between Special and Observer?
Julia: Ordinary members are only established parties in a country of the EU. They have full rights. Associate members are parties from countries outside the EU. They don't have to be registered. They have the same rights as Ordinary members except when the vote is about EU matters. Observer members can be parties which are parts of a larger party. ???? The special members are the young pirates of europe and the parliament group of the pirates. ???? They are automatically a member if they exist. So if they are recognized as the official youth organization they are automatically a member. They will be treated like an ordinary member concerning their rights and like an observing member concerning their obligations.
Krishna: If you vote for this now but later find out, ???
Comment from Remote: [I could not understand the english.]
Muriel: It is not the same to have a party from a european union but is not registered than a full party outside the EU.
Julia: ???? I suggest that we just do a motion when we come to associate members and change this.
Comment: Why would a party from a EU country which is not yet registered, only be an associate member?
Julia: To change this, we'd have to remove the 'established party' clause from the associate member.
Comment: Why 'Ordinary'. Could you just say 'Full Member'?
Julia: Yes, we could. But it doesn't really matter. But ordinary is the typical legal term which is used. I think it's just the legal standard. Any more motions?
Gregory: There is no way to support the PPEU as an individual?
Julia: You can not be a member, but you can donate.
Gregory: The motion is then to include supporting members for real support.
Matthias: I don't see any reason for that. Basically what you are saying is that we're selling memberships for people who pay. Why not just let them pay? This would make our list longer, and there is no reason.
Comment FR: It's not on the subject, but maybe there should be a status of donater.
Julia: The association can accept donations, it's stated in the financials part.
Gregory: Of course we can collect donations, even from nonmembers. But for some people it is attached to an emotional feeling of belonging. ??? Basically Bragging Rights. There are no real privileged except bragging rights.
Paul: Here we speak about the european party. There is already pirates without borders, where everyone can become an individual member. If you want to donate, you don't need to be a member. ???
Jack: If you want to have the fuzzy feeling of being part of the PPEU. Couldn't we just say that if you are a member of a member, you are automatically a member. Like european citizenship.
Martin: Where do we want to go? This is beyond nationstates. You can be a european. Maybe you come from a country which is rather artificial. ??? And eventually, we want to arive in europe, that's why I think it's important.
Gregory: One can of course donate to whoever one likes. About 90% do not go to the general assemblies. Many people support the party without being really active. This is also why we included Supporting Members. ???? We would love to include on the membership forms of the national parties a subform where people can apply for membership in the european party and pay regularly. Without a membership status, you need more resources to ask people for donations. Without a special category, it'll be much harder to collect regular donations.
Comment: I think it is good to have a space for supporters. ????
Paul: You insist on the fact that this is an association of parties. The goal of the organization is to act in the interest of its members. Which is the parties. ????? I cannot understand the interest that an individual has in membership in an association of parties.
Matthias: The moment we give them membership, they will want voting rights one day. This is not the organization the swedish pirate party is currently interested in creating. We want to bootstrap an organization fast???
Comment CAT: I completely disagree with the swedish point of view. But I do agree that we should not include people into the organization now. We should found at the beginning of 2013. Otherwise it'll not be able to coordinate the common program. We only have 18 months. Let's setup something simple. ???? Why do we need so many different types of members. Ordinary and Associated members should be enough. ??? We keep this simple.
Julia: We do have to have the parliamentarians as some type of members. Not necessarily as a separate category.
Martin: What do I do as a pirate if I live in a country where there is no Pirate Party. It's just a jester, these members don't have any rights. It's just bragging rights. If you say that they'll push for some rights. ??? But this will have to happen through the parties.
Procedural motion to end the speakers list.
Daniele: Sometimes when we say to people that all european pirates can collaberate together and make the program together. It's a nice thing, when I talk to pirates about this, they are all happy in this vision. Even if someone in this room is really scared about this vision - I don't know why. It is so nice if pirates from all countries can come together and make a common program. It's so democratic. The chamber of pirates.
Discussion about what the current topic is.
Daniele: They are kind of a category of members. Why do you keep on stopping me, even if I talk about the topic. The fact that individual membership is a backdoor, this is not magic, this is just an assembly of pirates. We are choosing to let people participate. What is this Orwell Movie, tell me?
Gregory: I would really like to ask Sweden who I understand are opposed to backdooring this organization into something else. My motion was only to include the supporter membership such that they could pay money. The same goes to the Catalan, they said it would slow down the process. How would a category of people who donate money slow down the decision procedures.
Comment CAT: It took half an hour, and we still have 6 people on the list.
Heated discussion between Gregory and CAT.
Gregory: Official protest, this is not the way we should be talking to each other. ??? We should have individuals under the "Supporter" label who donate money. And not project any Angst there. ???
Julia: Changing the supporting members into real members is just as hard as including them into the statutes in the first place. If we would do it the way Gregory supposes ????
Comment: There was an initial consensus of these 5 categories and we just talked about the wording. ??? We are actually wasting our time. Stick to this.
Matthias: If it is just a jester, we get money, they can call them "Supporting Members". What would be the harm if they can just call themselves "Supporters". In Sweden you can be a ???-Pirate without membership, you just pay for it. ??? Once you are a member, there is a notion of rights. Actually the EU regulations state that we need to register all donations anyway. Just don't put it into a membership category.
Krishna: Could we then vote on the 5 categories first and then on the supporters extra? We not only have member states vs. EFTA states. ???? If we want a sixths category for non-members it should not be in the membership discussion.
Comment CAT: Having individual members might create another problem. You need to check that these people really exist. And I know noone who knows how passports and various identification documents look like in the various countries. Otherwise we might get a lot of members who are actually fake identities.
Comment: We had the discussion about supporting people in the UK. ??? I'd be in favour of having a supporting title, but it should not be a membership. If you have no rights, it's not a membership.
Comment: To be a member of a non-profit organization, you need to be a legitimate person. A party cannot be a legitimate person. Maybe we should check this out.
Julia: But this is exactly what the green party is doing and it seems perfectly legal.
Stefan: The pirate party of switzerland is most definitely a judiciary person under swiss law.
Matthias: The belgians seem to have a structure where parties are separated from other types of organizations.
Motion: Jack: "Individual Members at PPEU member parties automatically become members of PPEU analogous to EU citizenship." Witouth any rights or obligations.
Motion: "Include 'Membership Supporter' for people who want to support PPEU with money."
Motion: "Include 'Pirates'."
Motion: Jack: "Individual Members at PPEU member parties automatically become members of PPEU analogous to EU citizenship." Witouth any rights or obligations.
Jack: I would probably be going against my own motion. I withdraw it.
Motion: "Include additional category of membership 'Supporter' for people who want to support PPEU with regular donations."
Matthias: I still dislike it.
Stefan: I also dislike it. Membership really implies some rights. If you state that you have none, than you are not a member, but a donator.
Comment: We could call them 'registered supporters'. They can still get the fuzzy feeling.
Procedural motion for a straw poll on the motion.
Motion: "Add 'Pirates'"
Matthias: I am not certain, but I guess this is a backdoor to include individual membership. I am against it.
Jack: I am not sure we have to have this in the statutes, but we could have a list of supporters or however we want to call them.
Comment: A Question to Sweden, how do you see the future of europe and the european pirates in it?
Matthias: ??? It would take too long. ???
Daniele: We forget that we are pirates. Allow the people to participate to the program can allow us as we can the 5 categories to become 6. The pirates can collaborate with each other. They can sustain the PPEU, even paying a little fee. And let the board have a continuum feedback of what the people is feeling and the real society is asking from them. This frighten of the pirates does not exist. If you see this as a backdoor, maybe you are in a wrong place here.
Procedural motion for straw poll on the motion.
Comment: We are not talking about setting up an organization for 2050. We are talking about 2014.
Motion: "Add 'Pirates'"
Daniele: Am I in a bad place, here?
Matthias: Yes, every time you do not abide by the board here in front and steal our time, you are in the wrong place.
Krishna: We will vote on the motion first. Then we will have a break.
Motion: "Create 'Registered Supporter' as a separate non-member category'".
Krishna: Sorry, this is not about membership.
Julia: Now the vote about the categories, with the 'Parliamentarian' change.
Krishna: The proposal has passed.
Krishna: Break until 18:00.
Krishna: We can assess the quorum.
Krishna: We have voted about the number of members, which are five. Then we have the motion about 'Register Supporter' without membership.
Julia: I'd like to add: This point will, according to this motion, will be part of the statutes, but not under the Members headline.
Jack: Irrespective of the merits of it, it should not be in the statutes. It should be for the board or council to decide.
Comment CZ: I support this, because the PPCZ has the same thing in the statutes.
Comment: Observers are also members, but have no rights.
Julia: Yes, they can speak in the council.
Julia: Of course the council can allow itself to listen to everybody.
Matthias: I like czech policy. Hence I support this motion.
Julia: Is there a countermotion? No.
Motion: "Use a category 'Registered Supporter' to create one fuzzy feeling, but they are not formal members."
Krishna: The motion has passed.
Julia: Now we have to go through these categories and define them. We'll start with the ordinary members.
Julia: This is the proposal. The ordinary member to become one, you have to be a political party in a EU country. You cannot be subordinate to any other party. A regional party could become an ordinary member if they are not subordinate to another party. The party must have 'Pirate' or a translation in their name.
Daniele: In Italy, we had this other party. And also they won in one ???
Julia: They obviously need to consider themselves part of the pirate movement. They have to intend to participate in EU parliament election. And they have to maintain an internal democratic structure. And they have to comply with the statutes and have to commit the manifesto, because the law says so. Any comments or motions?
Comment: If I understand correctly, in the beginning we removed the objectives and replaced it by just one. The parties that follow the same objective can be members of PPEU?
Julia: If some party is not part of the pirate movement, the council can kick them out. ??? You do not become a member automatically if you fulfil the conditions. ???
Jens: I think the parties need to follow the objectives of the pirate movement. Not just the objectives of the PPEU. ???
Julia: ????? The is going to be a motion to remove the requirement of registration. ???
Paul: A question. Why not require them to be recognized by the PPI? The other requirements can then go away. If I create a party "I fuck the pirates.", I should not be allowed to join.
Gregory: Some members I represent have a problem with the first point and want it to say: 'In Countries which are eligible to ????' The russians would say: ??? . The problem is, there is no real meat to the limit to EU countries. ??? Limiting it by the seat will exclude people who feel themselves to be part of europe. ??? I would file a motion to extend it to 'Pirate Parties in the EU or the candidate countries.' But why is this limitation there anyway? Why should a Pirate Party of Whatever who is interested in EU policies not be a member?
Julia: The reason was to say that non-EU parties will not decide for example about the election campaign for the european parliament.
Matthias: Sweden is not a member of the PPI. But I don't see that creating organization which relies on another organization which works more or less efficient. ??? I like my friends in Kazachstan, and I would love to see the kazachstan Pirates participating in the election campaign. Why exclude them?
Samir: I was wondering about: How do we avoid PPEU becoming a political power lock with regard to other pirate parties in the world? ????
Stefan: We would of course like to become a full member and help to get the european elections organized, because we are directly influenced by the decisions of the EU parliament and we'd rather have these decisions taken by pirates.
Comment: At minimum the countries should be candidates for membership in the EU. Those countries, their parties should be ordinary members. The proposal of Gregory is also very sympathic.
Motion: "Remove Associate Members and have the requirements of associate members for ordinary members."
Julia: This would mean that political parties in the EU or parties that are in a state at least part in the geographical europe, and they can either be a registered party or they can be a non-registered party if their country does not allow them to become a party.
Julia: Instead of having Ordinary and associated members, we just have ordinary members. Any party in a country which is part of the geographical europe can become a member. Either if they are registered, or if their country does not allow them to become registered.
Comment FR: As we discussed about ordinary and associated members. We should question the geographical territory of europe. Is it the sole base for the decision which parties can join? ??? Other countries can be very near europe and work together, but not be within geographical europe. Instead I would like to propose a motion such that ordinary members are from EU member states but associate members are not bound to europe territory but have no voting power on EU topics.
Julia: So you want to keep ordinary members the way they are, and extend the associated members.
Comment: For example the tunesian pirate party and others in north africa, they could be associate members too, which could be interesting.
Samir: What is geographical europe? Where I come from, a large parts of turkey for example is not considered part of geographical europe.
Comment CZ: Do we really want another PPI? If we remove the geographical europe, then its just another PPI.
Matthias: Basically, the council of europe has defined the territory of europe. Stick with it. It is rather big. I like it.
Matthias: Somewhere in the statutes it should say: When we say 'europe' we mean the council definition.
Comment CAT: In some countries you need thousands of signatures. Then some parties will have it really hard to become members. On the other side there are countries where 3 guys with 3 euros can register a party. I think it is not fair if the latter can become member, but the other can not. ???
Julia: We should probably discuss this in two steps. First the motions which address which countries, then the other requirements.
Daniele: I have a question: Switzerland is an ordinary member of associate member?
Julia: From the proposal: Associate.
Daniele: I want to revoke some motions I send there.
Comment: On the slide, I cannot see wether those members have voting rights.
Julia: It is important to know: Both the ordinary members and associate members have full voting rights. Except on EU topics, there only ordinary members can vote.
Comment: ??? In the example with the very small party, they can found themselves. ???
Julia: Can we agree that we can first vote on the geographic scope and then vote upon which parties in that regions can become members.
Daniele: Ordinary members: It is not a matter how many members can be ordinary members. But what weight they get. Tirol they are an autonomous region. Maybe the Pirate Party there will become a member of the PPEU. If Italy gets 6 as voting weight, we can decide to internal split this vote between the parties. This is the first thing I wanted to debate. I have also a question about countries: How can we avoid that Berlusconi next year presents as a pirate.
Julia: The current topic is just what countries.
Motions: "Eligable are Parties from countries who are eligible for PACE".
Motions: Members of EU, Candidates and Countries who have applied for candidate status.
Motions: "Eligable are Parties from countries who are eligible for ordinary membership for parliamentary assembly for the council of europe".
Julia: If everybody from the PACE can become an ordinary member, then would the associate members be gone?
Gregory: Kazachstan would like to be a full member of the PPEU.
Matthias: Let's just replace EU with europe. I support my terrific motion.
Discussion about the other two motions.
Motion: "Members of EU, candidate states, applied for candidate, and EFTA states."
Julia: This one is wider.
Comment: Only members which are able to elect can be a member. This makes not much sense for non EU countries.
Julia: If something in the statutes is illegal, the law always prevails.
Stefan: The Council will not vote for candidate lists. They just decide on how to support.
Gregory: Wanting to run in the EU elections could become a problem for them.
Jack: If you are not in the EU, you can't do that. So we would need to strike the last point.
Julia: Let's go point by point.
Daniele: The ordinary members will also decide on the money distribution?
Julia: Together with the associate members. The ordinary and the associate members can decide on money.
Stefan: I agree with the rule that we do the narrowest first. Do we want to expand the scope to the EFTA countries and candidate states to the european union.
Motion: "EU candidate states and countries which have applied for candidate status and EFTA countries."
Motion: "Eligibility: Members of EU plus candidate states and countries that applied for candidate state plus EFTA states."
Motion: "Replace EU with europe."
Julia: If this passes, ???
Stefan: It would mean that every country within europe would be eligible.
Daniele: What is the utility of the EU countries to run to the elections with this organization and after that they win some seats and get some funds from the political refoundings, to let other countries decide how to distribute that money.
Matthias: None. But this is not how it will happen. This organization will not get money based on the EU election. It will basically get money because of its size. Even if some money is influenced by the results, the utility is we get more pirates to use the money. ???
Julia: The dinner is set for 21:00. So I propose we continue to 19:30.
Daniele: People on the net complain about the volume of the stream, they can't hear us.
Stefan: Please raise your card, if you want to continue for half an hour.
Julia: Uninamiously approved.
Stefan: The next motion is on associate members.
Julia: The question is do the parties need to be registered. There was a motion about it.
Julia: What we have passed so far says: "Every party within europe can become a member. But they need to be a registered party."
Stefan: Again, do we want to continue until 20:00? Please raise your cards.
Julia: Ok, it's not unanimously.
Julia: Do all ordinary members have to be registered parties. Is there a motion?
Comment CAT: We were going to propose that you not only need to be a registered party but also had to run for election at regional, national or european level.
Julia: I propose you file a motion and we handle it afterwards.
Comment: This actually collides with the first bullet point because running for elections requires registration.
Julia: Is this universally true?
Comment CAT: It depends on the law of the country.
Comment: For us, ??? we already inflence the live in Slovenia, but we can't run. Excluding on that ground is pointless.
Julia: Again. Apparently you don't want to have the first point changed. Anybody wants?
Matthias: Registered and has run for elections. I'd say. We can always open up associate membership.
Comment CAT: Ordinary members should be members running for elections. And those just willing should be associate members.
Comment: Instead of running for elections it can be any organization in a european union country.
Julia: So we have a motion to remove the requirement to be a party and allow all organizations.
Comment: With regards with running for elections. The european elections will be the first elections we can run in. So we cannot be a part of PPEU then.
Comment CAT: You can, as an associate member.
Julia: We still have not defined the difference between ordinary and associate members. And we will probably change a lot there.
Motion: "All political party in the EU or intend to become one."
Stefan: I would interpret this as "a political party in europe or intend to become one."
Julia: If their country does not allow them to register as a party. I would interpret a case where a party needs to be very large as not allowing it.
Julia: We are not yet discussing the exact phrasing of the statues, we can say: We want all parties be able to become ordinary members which can not resonably become registered parties.
Comment: What if if your own government makes it hard to become a registered party. Does the PPEU want to restrict us in the same way.
Julia: We have to decide on this. And then the legal team will phrase it in a way which fits. I suggest that we pass a motion saying "which can not reasonably register".
Julia: But the other motion said: Any party which is trying to become registered.
Stefan: Do we get a motion about "not reasonably register"
Matthias: I am a little bit confused. Will it be possible for me to vote that I only want registered parties as ordinary members?
Julia: If all the motions fail, then this is what we will vote on.
Matthias: Vote no to all proposals for the good of the organization. We need stable parties to become members. They need to send delegates reliably. We can still help the small parties, but we cannot have them as full members, because they can not give the comittment necessary for full membership. Also the membershipfees for ordinary members will be too high for struggling parties.
Motion: "All political party in europe or intend to become one"
Stefan: So the next point is about the requirement to run in an election. Currently they need to attempt to run in an EU parliament election.
Julia: We can still vote on this motion. In some countries you can run for elections even if you are not a party yet.
Motion: "Remove 'intend to run in an EU election'"
Motion: "Add the requisite 'the party has run for an election. Regional, state or EU elections'"
Julia: So we are now discussing the question whether ordinary members need to intend to run for elections or already had run. ???
Julia: No requirement, two have run and intend to run, ????
Matthias: I think we can quickly remove the requirement that you had run in EU elections, because for some countries it makes no sense.
Motion: "To remove the bullet point 'Intend to participate in elections to the european parliament'"
Julia: Now we should discuss wether there should be another requirement. Either an ordinary member has to intend to run in an election, or it needs to have already run.
Comment: The intention of running in an election. ??? Having run in an election is already the intention.
Julia: If you say, having run in an election, then you must have done so in the past.
Jens: Running in an election often has some requirements, like collecting signatures. ???
Matthias: I will support the notion that people should have run in an election. Nobody will be excluded, but they just can not become ordinary members. Having run in an election gives us a certain guarantee of stability.
Comment: We have influenced laws, but never run. We existed for three years. But we never ran.
Gregory: The PP Kazachstan for example filed candidates but then was not allowed to run. This would demonstrate in a way that you intent to run in elections. Some obstactles are sometimes not under your control. But if you are a political party you want to run in elections. ???? At some point you need to start running.
Motions: "Add requisite for ordinary member: The party has run for an election at a regional, state or european elections"
Comment CAT: We change this motion to 'intent' to run.
Matthias: Do we want the council of this organization to discuss the intention of parties.
Straw-Poll: Green: You don't want any requirement. White: They have filed for running in an election in the past. Red: They have run in an election, i.e. they have been on the ballot.
Julia: So most people support the option that the party has filed to run in an election. I suggest we vote on that motion first.
Motion: "Add requsite for ordinary member: The party has filed for running in an election at the regional, state or EU elections."
Julia: I have added this as the second point.
Comment: I think you have a contradiction with the registered party point.
Julia: Not in all countries.
Julia: Now the non-subordinate requisite. If you are subordinate, you can become an observing member. For example PPCAT could become an ordinary member.
Comment: I have a problem with that, because every city could say: We run in elections independently and become an ordinary member.
Julia: They need to have filed to run in election. Also there will be some kind of weight for voting, so it is not neccessarily advantageous to split.
Gregory: This is how reality is working. Sometimes there are more than one pirate parties in a country, and sometimes not even competing. Or as it happens to be in austria in some point. Actually, we have an organization, for the PPI membership, in the regular case, there should only be one party per country. This is an incentive to create a federation. I don't think that within PPEU we need to repeat that incentive. Either people get along nicely or not. If not, it's not up for us to decide who's right and who's not.
Julia: Even if the city of Frankfurt would decide to run, the council can still just vote no.
Julia: Then vote on "Requirement for ordinary membership: Not subordinate to any other party."
Julia: "??? the term pirate or any translation somewhere in their party name"
Comment: For example we can create a party "I fuck all the pirates", so what is the point? Maybe the name should be "Pirate Party". What you write like this, you are not sure against surprises.
Comment CAT: In some countries it was forbidden to register because of the word 'Pirate'. There are many parties which share some inflection of 'pirate' in their name.
Comment NL: The term piracy was defined in the EU parliament, and christian engstrom even tried to amend it ???? In the EU there are no serious objections against the word 'Pirate'. So this problem is misplaced.
Julia: "Eligible are all parties which carry the term 'Pirate' or any translation or inflection of this term in their name"
Julia: "To maintain a democratic policial base and a democratic intertal structure"
Julia: Liquid Democracy is a type of democracy. But not the only one. For example representative democracy would also be fine.
Stefan: Unanimously accepted.
Julia: Would anybody like to add another criterion to this list?
Daniele: I wrote a motion.
Motion: "Change the word 'legal personality' to 'legal entity'"
Daniele: It is written in the statutes draft...
Julia: We are only voting on the bullet points.
Heated discussion on whether this belongs here.
Julia: Now to the obligations of ordinary members. [Reads slide.]
Julia: If there is discussion on single points, we can vote separately. Otherwise we vote en-bloc.
Comment: Before we know how much to pay, we cannot say wether we agree with losing the voting rights without payment.
Julia: Yes, but this is also a matter of principle. Otherwise, you can just not pay and keep voting rights.
Matthias: It will probably not be a symbolic fee. We need 15% of the budget from internal sources and this organization actually ???? If you don't pay then you don't get to go to the meetings.
Julia: Maybe we should vote on repercussions separately.
Julia: So I'll delete the last bullet point, because it's not an obligation.
Julia: Let's talk about the obligations first.
Comment: About maintaining transparency. It is different in different subjects. Recording of the minutes vs. publishing all the accounting data.
Julia: The draft says: Publish yearly accounts and conduct financial stuff in a transparent way.
Julia: I'll just add "financial" and "election results"
Matthias: I suggest we remove that. If we cannot agree on what transparency means, we best remove it.
Julia: I cannot see the harm if we ask for the financial statements. And just sending in the election results is not a lot of work.
Jens: [Cannot write own speach well...]
Motion: "Maintain transparency, including ..."
Matthias: In Sweden we normaly have transparency towards its members. And to nobody else. So having the right to privacy with respect to financial statements is very important for the swedish pirate party.
Daniele: I am totally in favour with the sweden. If they are against democracy, they are also against transparency. This is maybe not the pirate assembly, because I cannot listen to this stuff. In our manifesto in italy, we fight for transparency of the institutions which represent us. ??? If we cut of the transparency topic from this list, we are concurrent with other issues of my swedish friend against democracy.
Muriel: Would sweden agree with a bullet point saying "maintain transparency towards its members"?
Matthias: We'd be perfectly fine with that.
Matthias: I seldom get upset. But when I do I talk slower. I did not come to barcelona to get my pirate party assaulted with allegiations of non-democracy or other stuff. ???? Even if we think another party is not part of the pirate movement or whatever, we should not say it. Because it's unpolite. And I don't like unpoliteness. ???
Comment: Transparency is already a part of the pirate goals which are stated somewhere else.
Julia: I understand. But. Transparency is a goal of the pirate movement. But it is not say anywhere whether transparency towards its own members is fulfilling that goal.
Comment CZ: Transparency. We Chekz have been ??? about transparency lately. We live in a country where you can get a transparent bank account. Secondly, we like the idea. A lot of countries you cannot do it or don't want to. In the UK you cannot publish the names of who donated to the party. ??? Because I don't want to offent any parties. But I want to maintain as big a level of transparency as possible. I posted a motion...
Motion: "Maintain as big a level of transparency as allowed by the local law."
Comment: Transparency is hard to define. I can understand the italian view and the swedish view on transparency. I think it could be possible to have both. ???? Not everything needs to be public in the internet, but on the other hand, if everything is transparent to the members, a journalist can still just become a member, and see all the stuff. ??? Maybe in different countries ???
Julia: Since it's 20:00 I'd like to close the discussion liste.
Procedural Motion to the very same end.
Passed, nobody objects.
Daniele: We always talk about transparency of the parties, never about transparency of the pirates. The ordinary members of course have to guarantee the transparency of the PPEU. This is what I expect of the management of this party. I expect from the management, that they guarantee the transparency of the finances and what they are doing. In Italy we have the cashbook public.
Samir: We are not here to prevent war between france and germany. Or found a new superpower. ????? And once this line passes, it will be corrosive to the independence of all of us.
Comment FR: We want transparency, but we also protect privacy. We should not publish the identities of our members. ???
Gregory: The question is: Would it be ok for sweden to maintain transparency towards the organization?
Jack: PPEU respects the sovereignity of its members was already decided. ???? Transparency between the member and PPEU is ???
Motion: "Maintain Transparency including Finances towards its members"
Motion: "Maintain Transparency including Financial transparency towards its members."
Motion: "Maintain as big a level a level of transparency as is allowed by the local law."
Motion: "Remove the bullet point 'Maintain Transparency'"
Motion: "Maintain Transparency including Financial transparency towards its members."
Motion: "Maintain as big a level a level of transparency as is allowed by the local law."
Motion: "Remove the bullet point 'Maintain Transparency'"
Julia: The parties do not have to file their accounts to the PPEU. No we can either make a cut here, or if there are no discussions...
Stefan: There are motions...
Krishna: Ok, we will continue tomorrow.
Muriel: We changed the reservation to 21:30
Procedural motion to assess the quorum.
Krishna: IT IS HALF PAST, CAN EVERYBODY PLEASE SIT DOWN!
Comment: Another 10-15 minutes for the streaming.
Krishna: You have a motion?
Comment CAT: Yes, I want to present to motions.
Krishna: CAN YOU ALL SIT DOWN PLEASE AND BE QUIET, WE ARE STARTING.
Krishna: There are some procedural motions, and there are membership topics over from yesterday.
Krishna: Procedural motion to change the procedural rules.
Motion: "Limit the total amount of votes of a single delegate to at most 2 votes."
Matthias: I am just waiting until I get the attention I so desparately long for. Our Rules of procedures are probably not the best rules ever. But changing the rules in the middle of a meeting because of how it plays out is like changing the rules of a game because someone seems like winning. ??? If you want to change the rules, do it in between the events. So that the rules are clear in advance. ??? The rules are set in advance, we abide by them, but we don't change them midway. I hope we can be better than that.
Gregory: I was stuck in the train. I am very glad to be here in time to speak about this motion. Of course the countries which I represent here strongly oppose the motion. There is no sense anyway in limiting of how many countries one delegate can represent, because the countries have put trust in the delegate. ????? Why two, why not one? In PPI there is a rule that a delegation can be up to 6 members, but these share the same vote. ??? If something happens, for example the delegates get stuck somewhere, they can delegate to someone else. ??? Since many of you are talking about liquid democracy, this is how liquid democracy looks like, really. I represented the countries I represent also by splitting my vote where they had differing interests. ??? A weaker start for the PPEU because it would look like a procedural trick to exclude some countries. ??? I personally am not offended, and I would be happy with any outcome, but then I would request a procedural break to get my countries get a new proxy. ??? In the end, the result would stay the same.
Julia: To the next speakers: Please think whether you actually have new points to add.
Comment FR: We didn't really ask ourselves, who ????? and now we have to discuss just about things that some people thought evident. But we have to clarify what we think are implied rules. A lot participants maybe thought that noone could even have two delegations. It is not a bad thing if not all participants are on the same line, to discuss it and find a solution. We don't have a rule that the rules must be stable. ??? I think it is good to discuss and find a solution together, otherwise people will complain afterwards because they don't like the rules.
Matthias: I don't mind discussions, I actually sort of like them. But if you believe that by discussions we can come to a result everybody is happy about, we err. ??? Some people will always be unhappy about this decision. We are delegates representing countries. ???? But equal voting in this case is not individual one vote, it is one party one vote. Basically what we are saying is that some countries like Kazachstan made the wrong choice of delegate. I don't think anybody has the right to contest the choice of delegate of a country. Not even italy, I'd not object to their choice. It's not our position to tell this to countries. ???
Comment GAL: Gregory started with 1 country, in the end he had 4. You should not get further cards during the congress, the countries should have participated from the beginning. ??? This is not a clean process.
Gregory: Right now I have 5. ???? Why are they growing? Because of the clarification process and some countries had problems with the process. And some had problems with the remote delegation. And I have no idea how many will come. I was asked before the conference to get in touch with countries which are not coming to make it possible for them to be represented. ???
Muriel: I would like to say that what Mab said that we should not change the rules in the middle of the meeting. Well, we already did this. It has nothing to do with trusting Gregory, it's just that it is hard not to make mistakes if you try to handle 5 opinions at the same time. Hence it should be limited so it reduces mistakes.
Gregory: I am aware of the responsibility. It's a burden, I would love to have less of them. ???
Comment: We had other Countries joining during the course yesterday, so that happens. And just off the record, Gregory voted differently for different countries. ???
Comment BE: When we are coming here, we are coming to do something for the european election. At the end it's the geographic europe. Are we doing PPI or PPEU? If someone is representing 25% of the vote, this guys always wins. ??? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Is it in the interest of the PPEU to be a copy-paste of PPI.
Procedural motion to close the speaker list.
No one objects.
Comment CAT: Gregory said that it was hard to split his vote, but none of his votes were recorded. But I never saw any splitted vote. I always only see red or green. I do not believe that the parties who not even managed a remote delaget. ????
Julia: I can assure you, some of the votes were split and some were recorded.
Comment CAT: I think nobody expected this, so this is why we don't have a rule about it.
Matthias: I think it is still morally wrong to change the rules to reduce the influence of a single person. It was told that 5 votes always wins. The majority when Gregory and I were in disagreement, I won. There were only 2 occasions when it went the other way. So 5 votes is not all that.
Motion: "Limit the total amount of votes of all participants to a maximum of two - delegated or not."
Gregory: I would like to request a procedural break for an hour to get back to the countries.
Muriel: I sent an email that many parties wanted this motion, so they could prepare. ????
Matthias: I think we will have to take the time. Anyone who voted in favour of this motion, had to realize that there would be problems with finding a new delegate. ??? An hour is actually quite a short time.
Comment CAT: It can be a little bit messy, but maybe they can participate by email like voting in the next two days on the things we vote upon.
Muriel: We told Gregory about the motion yesterday.
Gregory: At two in the morning.
Muriel: I think this asking for time is just a way to protest.
Comment NL: A lot of people in this room discovered the internet. It is really cool. It allows us to communicate over vast distances in short times. It is sensible to give them some time to communicate, ??? I think a 20 minute break would be a reasonable compromise.
Procedural motion to close the speaker list.
No one objects.
Comment BE: If Gregory is in contact to vote for the countries, then there is someone there. If there is a real party after those votes, then there is a pirate behind a computer.
Matthias: I was in contact with the swedish pirate party and got general directions. No one here is in mental contact with his party. ???? Gregory probably got general directions, ??? But the choice to trust me was made by the swedish pirate party. ??? If they had trouble finding Gregory, they will have trouble finding someone else. ????
Daniele: I want to change my vote to no.
Julia: You can not just change your vote, but you could file a motion to remove the restriction we just passed.
Daniele: In Italy we limited the delegation of a single delegate. Because someone showed up with 8. But we did it after the meeting. ???
Julia: The list of speakers is closed.
Gregory: I would like to propose to vote on the proposal of italy first. If we reduce the number of delegations at the end of the meeting, it saves us a lot of trouble.
Comment CAT: During the next voting, Gregory would only have two votes.
Comment NL: I would like to ask Gregory ??? will the PPI be hosted in one of the five countries you represent? There is a conflict of interest here.
Krishna: Please raise your cards if you want to revoke the last motion.
Julia: We move on to vote on the 1 hour break.
Straw-Poll: Green: 1 hour break. Red: 20 minute break.
Julia: There were more supporters for the 20 minutes break. So we now vote on that break.
Procedural motion for a 20 minute break.
Julia: We continue at 11:46.
Krishna: 3 minutes, then we continue.
Julia: Ok everybody, please take your seats. We continue.
Julia: Everybody please have a seat. We have to...
Julia: Would you please stop your discussions so we can continue. We have to assess the quorum.
Procedural motion to assess the quorum.
Julia: We have more procedural motions.
Motion: "Record every delegated or remote vote."
Gregory: We yesterday had this motion passed and then changed it. I see no reason to table it again. This session is open, everybody can do it himself, really don't move your job of doing a decent report to somebody else.
Stefan: We are all delegates. This will record all votes.
Motion: "Record every delegated or remote vote."
Julia: This motion was rejected.
Julia: We continue.
Motion: "I ask the assembly to organize further telematic meetings..."
Daniele: Since today we have to discuss about the euroliquid. We don't have the time. Hence I reduced the time to 10 minutes, just to manage a further meeting to talk about euroliquid.
Julia: If you are in favour of a 10 minute discussion on euroliquid, raise your green card, otherwise raise the red card.
Julia: At 14:20 we'll have the 10 minute discussion.
Julia: Yesterday we talked about the obligations of ordinary members. We agreed that ordinary members can be all parties in countries in europe. We have agreed that they do ??? have to attend meeting and maintain transparency including financial transparency towards their members. We continue with the other bullet point: "To pay their designated fee as Ordinary Members in a timely manner"
Comment BE: We scrapped all concrete objectives of the PPEU and replaced it with the "interest of its members". I want to see concrete things, and the only concrete thing I see is paying. ??? For ordinary member, belgium is not here to give money. You can pay a symbolic euro, but that's it.
Motion: "to pay a symbolic fee of 1 euro".
Matthias: When we started this one of the main objectives was to get EU funding. It clearly states that 15% of money needs to come from somewhere else. I think membership fees are a good place. ??? Ordinary members are those who vote how to distribute the money. They should also be the ones giving the money. ???? Hoping for other members to pay, this might be an optimistic approach. ???
Comment UK: I don't think this motion really achieves much. If you just keep it as it is, later on in the finances section, it will say "the council will set the fees", and they can well set it to 1 euro.
Julia: This is basically just saying that there is a membership fee.
Comment BE: It depends on for example a country which has members in parliaments, but there are other countries which have not. ??? It depends on which party. It could be writing something like "the fee depends on the importance of the party or the financial ability".
Julia: You want to withdraw this motion and file it when we talk about the concrete fees?
Vote on the Bulletpoint "to pay their designated fee as Ordinary Members in a timely manner"
Julia: We come to "to report every year to the association on party and policy developments".
Julia: So we have the ordinary member requirements and obligations. So we move on to the rights. What can an ordinary member do? 1) to vote in the council, 2) participate in political discusions, speak in council, 3) appoint delegates and arbitrators and propose candidates for the Board 4) to hav eaccess to use of the Associations logo and other representational devices.
Gregory: What are the arbitrators about? Will there be a court of arbitration?
Julia: The proposal is that every country sends one delegate to the court of arbitration, and if there is a case, then a random subset, will decide on the case, without those confliting two. ????
Matthias: I propose we just vote on this en-block and then remove the court of arbitrators later.
Gregory: I propose to remove the arbitrators first, and maybe later put them back in.
Julia: "to vote in the council on every matter"
Julia: "The right to participate in political discussions and to speak at Council meetings"
Julia: We have a motion for the third point.
Motion: "Strike the words 'and arbitrators' from the bullet point.
Matthias: If we pass this as it is, it just means that the members send arbitrators, it's not clear that they actually have to form a court.
Motion: "Strike the words 'and arbitrators' from the bullet point.
Julia: Then it is "To appoint delegates and propose candidates for the board.".
Julia: Then we vote on "have access to use of the Associations logo and other representational devices"
Julia: We are done with the section of ordinary members rights and can move on to the next type of members. Originally the associative members were supposed to be parties in countries outside of europe. ??? We have a motion to remove associate members entirely.
Matthias: Since we will have a need for members who could be ordinary members but for example don't want to pay a fee, could use the associative membership.
Julia: There are also observer members, which don't have votes.
Comment: We should not remove associated members which have not run in elections yet.
Julia: He is arguing that because parties have to have filed for elections, there should be a class of members which have not yet filed for election.
Jack: Can you bring up the criteria for ordinary members to remind us of the difference?
Julia: [Reads slide]
Comment FR: Yesterday I submitted a proposal about associate membership to remove the territorial dependency on europe. I believe we might want to work with parties which are not part of geographical europe. ??? There should be a place in the statutes for them. ??? So I propose to remove the european geography point and keep associative members.
Julia: There is a second motion to remove the geographical requirement, this mean parties outside europe could become associative members.
Stefan: If every party in the world can join, we are just refounding PPI.
Matthias: We should discuss associate members last. Because then we know which types of members we might not have thought about. ???
Procedural motion to handle associatite members last.
Julia: Then we continue with observer membership. The proposal is that these are parties without voting rights and membership fees. But they can participate in discussions and file motions with the council. The proposal for eligibility is "all parties, which are parties of ..." I don't think this makes sense, so I'll go to the draft...
Discussion on the board.
Julia: Basically they have to be registered as a party or some other form, say association. ...
Krishna: What it means is a party or some other entity.
Julia: We don't have to vote on this, everyone is either a party or not a party. But the next point is that observer members need to be subordinate. [Reads slide]
Julia: There'll be motions, so let's first have a general discussion.
Jack: This seems to me a lot more like associate members should be. Observer membership could be any organization which is aligned with us, ??? rather than just restricting it to other parties.
Julia: Do you agree that regional parties should be one type of organizations which ???
Jack: Remove the requirement to be a party.
Matthias: The second point means they have to be a party or what constitutes a party in that country.
Julia: I would advise you to file a motion to remove the second bullet point in this case.
Stefan: I would remove the geographical requirement. Because Marocco and Tunesia etc. might want to join. Also I would remove the requirement to be a party, because for example pirates without borders might want to join.
Gregory: Right now, the rules for observer membership is stricter than for ordinary membership. We should first harmonize it with what we decided yesterday.
Julia: If it is just the wording, we'll of course harmonise it.
Julia: I suggest, we go bullet point by bullet point. If you want it removed, vote against it.
Julia: You don't have to pass a motion to remove bullet points.
Julia: We vote on the first bullet point first, i.e. whether they need to be parties.
Julia: "The ordinary members have to be parties."
Krishna: Observer members.
Julia: Everybody understands the question? Good.
Julia: We move on to the next bullet point.
Julia: "They have to be in europe."
Jack: Now we removed the requirement to be parties, we should also remove the requirement about elections.
Julia: We'll go bullet point by bullet point.
Gregory: I want to suggest that observer members have to be in europe or in neighbouring countries.
Julia: You can either file a motion or separate motions for it.
Julia: So we have two motions on this point. All neighbouring countries and "all neigbouring countries and those with special relations"
Comment NL: Can we please be consistent across the statutes what we mean by 'europe'.
Julia: The definition here is consistent everywhere and is what we decided yesterday.
Comment IS: We are increasingly connected to europe but we are definitely not in geographical region. Please make it clear.
Julia: We mean "parliamentary assembly of the council of europe" if we say "europe".
Comment: We should be open for countries which are neighbours and those with special relations to europe, and then let the board decide whether these requirements are fulfilled.
Comment: But for example the Pirate Party of Brazil could be a friend to our PPEU? Like other organizations all over the world are friends with us now.
Comment NL: I am here only for one reason. To win the european elections. ??? Please stop discussing another PPI.
Comment: But can PPEU has more tasks.
Gregory: Absolutely true that the european elections in 2014 is an important task. But we are building the PPEU as an organization not only for the election campaign. We all agreed in Prague that there will be an coordinated election campaign. But then it will be done. But PPEU is a foundation for our future work together. ??? By doing this work properly we lay a solid foundation for the years to come. If we rush things, we will not have an effective organization. ???
Comment CAT: We can cooperate with parties or organizations outside of the continent, but they don't need to be members. I think nobody is going to be against inviting the brazilians, or marrocco if there are common interesest. But we should differentiate between PPI and PPEU. If it is something worldwide, do it at PPI.
Comment: Maybe we are just missing a friendship status in this membership thing.
Julia: We have two competing motions, we have a straw-poll first.
Julia: "Eligible as obserer members are organizations in europe or in the neighbouring countries." This is motion 1. Use your green card for this. "??? associations in europe, in neighbouring countries to europe or in countries with special relations to europe".
Comment FR: What about world wide organizations?
Julia: If you don't want any requirements, just vote no to the two motions and the bullet point.
Comment GAL: I don't want neighbours. What should I vote?
Green for neighbours only, red for "with special relations" as well.
Julia: More people prefer the broader motion. Before we vote on it, I want it in writing.
Motion: "... and special relations ..."
Julia: I'll explain once again. If we pass this motion, it means all countries in europe and neigbouring countries and countries with special relations" can become members. ???
Comment NL: What is "special relations".
Gregory: In international law it usually is taken to mean "having relevant treaties".
Comment NL: How is it going to be defined by this organization.
Gregory: USA, Canada and Japan. That's probably it. Basically good old trade partners.
Matthias: Either it will be defined by this organizations statutes or by this organizations council. That's how it is going to be defined.
Julia: Once again, ??? voting.
Motion: "... and special relations ..."
Julia: Are there more motions?
Gregory: I would propose that we also vote on the other straw-polled motion. Because the discussion afterwards changed opinions.
Motion: "... or neigbouring countries"
Julia: If there are no more motions for the first bullet point. You vote yes if you want it to be restricted to europe, otherwise vote red.
Julia: If you vote no, where the organization is from, doesn't matter. They can be anywhere.
Julia: Green is just europe, red is any country or international organizations.
Julia: The proposal has been rejected.
Julia: I think the next bullet point has become void. Since we have decided that observer members don't have to be parties, there should not be a requirement that they should be subordinate members ???
Julia: No one objects. We move on to the name. Objections to this point?
Comment NL: I would prefer to add "and don't have the word 'green' in their organization name".
Julia: Please prepare a written text. In the meantime we can discuss.
Matthias: For me green is not worse than red or black or purple, it's ???
Comment NL: My loyalty is to pirates at first. I am also aware of strategic alliances between greens ??? they are not all nice. ??? Look at for example at groups which call themselves "green pirates". It poses a threat to our identity and that of the greens. We have to develop our own identity. ??? People should not pirate us in that respect.
Comment CAT: We don't need the word 'pirate' in observer members. ??? I agree with your opinion, that some organizations which were anti-establishment a century ago. ??? Maybe we can just reject these organizations when they want to join. ????
Daniele: Even if I totaly agree with Samir, there is a rule in marketing: Never talk about your competitor. If we talk about them, we give them importance. So. My opinion is to avoid this issue even if we totally agree with this. The second issue: In italy we have some organizations that fight for digital rigths like 'artisti ???' ??? they are very ??? maybe they don't have the word pirate but they are more pirate than us even.
Julia: You don't have to do a motion, you can simply vote against the bullet point.
Gregory: I would suggest what italy suggested. Scrap the requirement. It's observing membership. People who have a special interest in the organization. ??? If we not put in 'not green' we should also put in 'not nazi' and so on. ??? We cannot have an exhaustive list at all, so let's not start with it.
Jack: I'll be in favour of getting rid of this entirely. Other organizations don't belong in the statutes at all. The political landscape changes.
Matthias: I agree with italy. I agree with gregory there are other political labels which are as harming to us as green. ??? I do not believe the greens will take over the pirate movement by officially joining the PPEU.
Samir: I know things, if I say them out loud, they might be criminal allegations. You make jokes about 'evil greens'. ??? But they have done some really nasty stuff to some pirates. I want to keep them out of organization.
Motion: "Carry the term pirate or any translation of that term somewhere in their party or organization name and their name shall not include the name 'green' in any language."
Julia: If you want to exclude greens, raise your green card.
Julia: If there are no more motions, then we vote on the proposal. "They have to carry the word pirate somewhere in their name."
Julia: The next point is void. Then "observer needs to maintain an democratic internal structure".
Comment CAT: We have transparency as a requisite for an ordinary member. So not just democratic but also transparent to its members.
Jack: There'll be some organizations which we might want as observer member which are meritocratic or such. ??? Organizations we might want to align us with. ???
Julia: Usually, what it means to have a democratic internal structure basically means there are members and they democratically elect members. ??? It doesn't keep us from talking to other organizations, but it means only democratic organizations can become members.
Matthias: I am a strong fan of foundations. They cannot be democratic because they don't have members. We would exclude all foundations. But they are cool, so we should allow them.
Comment IS: The icelandic modern media institute for example would not fit this definition.
Comment: We have to think about the requirements. I think it should say "non-profit organization".
Julia: Anybody wants to change the bullet point? No. So we vote on it. "Having to maintain a democratic political base and a democratic internal structure"
Daniele: I want to know: The observers have to be accepted by the council?
Julia: Every member has to be accepted by the council. And I'd say it wouldn't be sensible to found with observer members.
Julia: We have one more bullet point in the proposal. "have to be politically active"
Gregory: This is also a minimum requirement. We don't like for example 'Microsoft' applying for membership. Not having corporations entering it.
Matthias: I think it should go. If we don't want corporations, we should have a bullet point. But this one would for example exclude research institutes, which are not allowed to become politically active.
Julia: Then we vote on "have to be politically active".
Julia: Now we have several motions. We will first read them all.
Motion: "Add the same requirements of transparency as ordinary members."
Stream: Stream is down.
Julia: We can still continue presenting.
Stream: But the remote delegates.
Motion: "Carry the term pirate or any translation of that term somewhere in their party or organization name."
Julia: This is from Samir? You tabled a motion to reintroduce it?
Discussion about the motion.
Comment NL: You voted on it, it was refused.
Motion: "Every observer member must work in favour of PPEU goals."
Motion: "Add 'any association that does not qualify for another category of membership'"
Julia: None of these motions seem to be competing. We can just discuss them one by one.
Julia: Maybe we should have a 5 minute break and wait for the stream.
Julia: The stream is working again.
Julia: We continue, please take your seats.
Julia: Please take your seats, we continue with the meeting.
Julia: Everybody, first we have to assess the quorum.
Krishna: CAN YOU PLEASE BE QUIET!
Julia: Please raise one of your cards if you are present.
Julia: We have collected all of the motions to add bullet points to the slides. Since there aren't any conflicts, we discuss them one by one.
Procedural motions to change the agenda: "Finalize the next real-life meeting" and "for the next meeting, finalize the rules of proceedures for the meeting, further changes of rules only effective on the next meeting".
Julia: But it would still be possible to change the rules. These are two unrelated things. We talk about the first motion first: After this point which is requirements for observer members, we will discuss the next meeting. Because we'll not finish today. We have 50 minutes left. We have to leave at 14:30. ???? So if you want to change the agenda, vote green, otherwise red.
Julia: We'll finish this slide and then we talk about the next meeting.
Julia: "that maintain transparency including financial transparency towards their members"
Jack: We didn't like this point for full members, we should not have it for ordinary members.
Julia: We didn't like financial transparency towards the public...
Matthias: He's stating what the UK likes.
Jack: ??? some organizations have members towards whom they needs to be transparent about. Other don't.
Julia: This would imply they have members.
Matthias: If they have zero members, they have to be transparent towards no one.
Motion: "that maintain transparency including financial transparency towards their members"
Julia: We move on to "non-profit organizations". Would someone like to comment?
Matthias: This would exclude foundations. Oh... this would only exclude corporations and individuals.
Comment FR: We have removed everything. Individuals could be observer members.
Motion: "non-profit organisation"
Julia: This has been approved.
Motion: "are organizations that are in favour of PPEU goals".
Matthias: I'd say that we should not accept organisations that work against our goals, but this requirement would exclude some neutral organisations. ????
Comment CAT: We can at least receive attempts from organisations which have nothing to do with the pirate movement, we can obviously still vote no. ??? It doesn't mean "every PPEU goal".
Samir: I am having contacts which people from NGOs and some of them don't even want to be on the same picture with me. So they would not be able to join if this would hurt their political neutrality, because they'd be out of business. ????
Matthias: The evil ones will not read the text and say 'oh wait, I cannot apply'
Motion: "work in favour of PPEU goals"
Julia: We move on to "are organizations that don't qualify for any other types of membership"
Jens-W.: If you can't pay, you can become observer member. With this motion, no longer. ???
Samir: If you qualify for full membership, ???
Matthias: I'd like to use the associative members for parties which might one day become full member. ???
Comment CAT: Taking the philosophy of the swedish delegate, keep it simple. ??? I would suggest anyone to stop talking and start voting. ???
Comment: A european party may not become an observer member if they fail to become ordinary or associate member.
Daniele: So they are excluded?
Julia: If we pass this, then a party which could apply for ordinary or associate membership can't become an observer.
Julia: If you are a party, but don't want to apply for ordinary membership. You cannot become an observer instead. But observer members cannot vote.
Daniele: Is there another kind of association or only these two?
Daniele: If italy want to become a member, but prefer to wait some years, so in the meantime they can partiicpate in any other way to this organization even without voting? Or are they forbidden?
Julia: Sweden's proposal is to make associate members fit this role.
Matthias: My idea is that any party that don't want to become an ordinary member shall apply as an associate member. The reason to separate them is that we can have a clause that associate members reaching the criteria automatically become ordinary members, if you want to. That would let people choose between those two options. ???
Samir: There might be financial motives for being an observer member instead. So I propose to take the vote after the finances are clear.
Gregory: Fix the last line "doesn't qualify or have not requested any other membership type".
Julia: What is the difference between this and not having a point at all?
Procedural motion to close the speaker list.
No one objects.
Motion: "Observer members are organizations that don't qualify for any other type of membership."
Julia: Are there any motions left on this topic? No. We have agreed that observer members can be organisations that maintain transparency including financial transparency towards it members and are a non-profit organisation. Then we are done with the eligibility criteria.
Julia: We then come to the topic of the next statutes meeting. We still have a lot of work to do. We need one or two more weekends to meet. I personally think reallife meetings are way more efficient than mumble sessions. ??? I know there is a meeting planned in rome in November which regards the election campaign. It should be preserved for that topic. So we need volunteers. If someone thinks their party is able to organize a meeting sometime soon.
Daniele: In the meeting in rome we can dedicate some time also to complete the points we didn't complete today. In November we can take the time to refine some issues also and decide in the agenda the campaign and the rest.
Krishna: I think that a part of a weekend is not enough for the rest. Many of the more conflicting points we have not even touched yet.
Comment CAT: It is not a bad idea to do some work online. Because there are people like me who talk to much. With three like me, we can kill such a meeting.
Julia: There is of course going to be online meetings.
Comment CAT: ... we also have other countries also running for elections. We can help these countries by meeting there.
Jack: We would be able to host something in November. Manchester has an international airport.
Julia: So PP-UK is offering to host a conference.
Comment: I think online preparations with the new tool Krisna made can be help a lot. ???
Comment FR: We need to meet before November. ???? Organizing meetings when the host has an election does not help, but eats up resources of small parties. ???
Julia: So France is offering to host in the beginning of 2013.
Stefan: I already distributed invitations for February 2013, there will be a national assembly and we can place a PPEU meeting there if you whish so. It'll be an Aarau again. 22. January 2013
Julia: I actually believe we need two more meetings before the founding conference. One more for bullet points, and then one weekend for the real text of the statutes. Well, this is optimistic. But we need two at least.
Daniele: If the founding is in the beginning of 2013, then maybe the two meetings of the statutes in october in england and november in rome. And after decide about the campaign. In my opinion the campaign agenda of rome can be changed with the statutes and maybe decide upon the campaign in france or aarau.
Comment GAL: I have to consult with the rest of my collegues. ???? It is ok with them, we will offer.
Matthias: I would be very worried if we cancelled an election campaign conference in favour of a statues conference.
Daniele: We move it one month back.
Matthias: ??? Just booking a meeting soon will mainly generate more meetings. I would suggest a later date and just postpone the funding. There is no rush. ???
Julia: It would be very good for the election compaign when we found PPEU during the election. It would not be a statues discussion but a media event. We could do it in early 2014. ??? We can coordinate the election campaign before the official founding, this was the plan anyway. And I think we should keep this plan. All other parties are already preparing for EU elections. ???? It would be really important to have a meeting on the election campaign soon.
Comment BE: It is also more concrete. ?????
Julia: We should collect the offers.
Comment BE: With an offer it is only possible, we think for the launch of the PPEU it would be good if it would happen in brussels. ??? So, for the Launch it'd be cool in Brussels.
Samir: Can we please have a formal vote on this one?
Julia: We don't have to decide this today.
Julia: We have UK, France, Galicia, Switzerland
Comment: Do you really intend to postpone founding until 2014?
Julia: This is my proposal. The reasoning is ????? good publicity event, also we don't need the organization for ???
Matthias: If we manage to have a statutes in spring, we should found in 2013. We can get funding if we have 7 members in parliaments, and this might be reached in 2013. To get the 2013 funds, we would need to found in 2013 and can use the money in 2014. ?????
Krisna: We have to agree on the next meeting.
Julia: Should we have a formal vote to postpone the founding?
Julia: Green card to not have the founding conference in the first quarter of 2013. Otherwise, vote red.
Julia: So we have decided that we'll not do the founding in the first quarter of 2013 so the earliest possible date is 1. April 2013.
Julia: Any date before April 2013 would be a good idea for the next meeting. So we have four proposals, UK, Switzerland, Galicia and France. Switzerland is already offering a concrete date which is in February.
Stefan: We have been in Switzerland, I'd rather we go to the UK. It would be more fair.
Jack: ??? There will be some international pirates meeting up at our national conference, but we'll need a whole weekend.
Jack: The end of november would be possible.
Daniele: 17./18. November is rome.
Matthias: After the november meeting, december would be great.
Jack: December would be possible.
Comment FR: The end of november would be too soon for france. I would have proposed a date around the switzerland proposal.
Julia: How about early february?
Julia: What about Galicia?
Comment GAL: I still have to check with the party.
Julia: The meeting in France has no specific date yet, but it would be in early february.
Julia: I have a proposal. We decide to have one meeting in the UK in december and one in february in France. Galicia can check, and if we need a third one, it could be in Galicia.
Julia: I have UK in early december and france in early february.
Stefan: We have this meeting, but we have already been to switzerland once. It would be fair if PPEU meetings would visit other countries.
Gregory: Germany could offer to host it in Essen.
Comment: We have a nice room in Essen.
Julia: The question is, should we just note it in case we need it? Ok, we just keep it in mind.
Comment: Would it be more cost-effective to just extend a conference?
Julia: If you have more than 2 days you exclude people having jobs.
Comment: Traveling through europe already excludes 2 days, namely monday and friday.
Julia: We will need two conferences anyway, so we can vote on the conference duration.
Julia: We are voting to have the next statutes conference in early december in the UK and the next one in early february in France.
Julia: I have to explain what we are voting on. The text is "We decide to have the next statutes meeting in december in the UK and the second one in France in early February."
Julia: So we have more or less fixed dates for the next meetings.
Julia: There is another motion.
Krisna: This time everybody was a bit surprised about what happened here. We have regular mumble meetings. I propose that we have a detailed agenda for the next meeting three weeks in advance. And the same for the rules for procedures.
Motion: "We create a detailed agenda and a finalised rules of proceedure three weeks before the next meeting."
Krisna: So we will meet online.
Krisna: In the past me and a few others have used one mailing list, the ppeu-statutes. This is an open list. And there is a closed mailing list, only for the delegates. Everyone can read but everyone can write. I want a vote to choose which one to continue.
Stefan: We should have an official mailing list, where things like invitations are sent. Discussions, Remote delegates, votes. ... We don't need everyone posting there. So I am in favour of keeping both.
Julia: Some organizations could become special members, so the main discussions should be in the open mailinglist. So official discussion continues on the statutes mailing list.
Comment: There is already is another mailing list. You talk about young pirates, we could make an exception. There are two people from the checz pirate party trying to read that mailing list, it's impossible.
Comment CAT: There is two many germans on the ppeu mailing list. When we started working, many people joined and the same topics ??? a closed mailing list is the only way to advance in a fast way.
Motion: "We will use the established closed mailing list." and "We can use the statutes mailing list also as an official mailing list."
Julia: Green for main discussion on the delegates-only list. Red for main discussion on the ppeu statutes list.
Julia: We first decide which motion is preferred. The green card if you prefer the closed mailing list, where everyone can read but only delegates can write. You use the red card if you want the main discussion on the ppeu statutes mailing list.
Julia: Could we please concentrate.
Jack: There are still two open lists.
Krisna: Statutes mailing list and the closed mailing list. These are the two options.
Julia: There is a general ppeu mailing list, where there is a lot of traffic. We mean the ppeu statutes mailing list, where there are relatively few people, but theoretically anybody can write on it.
Julia: So the majority prefers the closed one.
Motion: "The official discussion of PPEU statutes will take place on the mailing list, where only delegates can write."
Julia: This was accepted.
Motion: "Any young pirate organization from any state can send someone to write on this email list."
Julia: Now only official delegates can write. The motion is that also young pirate organizations can have someone writing on that mailing list.
Comment CAT: Would it not be better to allow more than one delegate from every pirate.
Julia: For now I just want the young pirates to be able to participate in the discussion.
Motion: "Any young pirate organization can appoint someone to write on this email list."
Julia: We have the last topic, Muriel can we stay until 14:40?
Daniele: Since the chamber of pirates has not been voted on yesterday. Euroliquid project will grow apart from PPEU. This fissure has occured. ??? We will have more time to organize each other and coordinate better all the digital participation of everybody. In the wiki wiki.ppeu.net there is a euroliquid page where has been collected all the brainstorming we did in the past weeks. And I invite everybody to read that. What about direct democracy? What about participative democracy? I can talk about italy. Our first problem is the corruption. Even if the last years many parties with good intentions tried to change something, when they arrived to the top, the corruption machine took them and so all the good intentions were gone and they began to act as the traditional parties did. ??? In favour of lobbyists and banks. The result is that in italy a lot of people suffer and the banks take everything. ??? You cannot consider safe as long as in the last year maybe, all people were better than now. The solution for this corrupted system of politics is direct democracy. Direct democracy will allow people to decide about their lifes even in the good and in the bad. In this room we have the possibility to change this. We can do the difference. With the other parties. This is not a votation, I just want to ask to raise the green card if you intend to participate in this project in the sense that we'll record the cards, and I'll send invitation tokens to those participating.
Daniele: ??? How this plattform has to be done and the basic rules are to be implemented.
Comment GAL: I am not going to participate but one of my collegues wants. So, the green card is?
Daniele: You participate as a party. Afterwards you choose a delegate.
Comment: This is about setting up a liquid feedback instance for the european union?
Daniele: Whether it'll be liquid feedback is still open. This is one of the questions we will have to decide.
Straw-Poll about who participates.
Julia: Before we close...
Daniele: It could be useful to, and we can technically this, to implement within the euroliquid platform a little group of the delegates to keep on discussing before the next meetings. They might not be decisionally effective, but they will solve a lot of discussions. And maybe during the next meetings reach all the points. So this is a motion maybe?
Motion: "To create a dedicated unit for debating on the euroliquid point."
Julia: It's a motion to create a dedicated group to work on the euroliquid with something like delegates.
Comment: So every party has to delegate someone to this group?
Matthias: Basically he's proposing that instead of discussing on the mailing list people should discuss on the euroliquid.
Comment CAT: No, he's proposing the statues discussions should be on the euroliquid in parallel.
Julia: This is too vague, we need the concrete text.
Krisna: I take the time to thank Julia, Max and ???,
Krisna: Then there is Stefan, who's also vice chairman.
Krisna: And then there is Jens, who's taking the minutes.
Krisna: And last but not least thanks to the catalans who have organised everything.
Julia: I want to add a big thank you to Krisna.
Motion: "Create a unit dedicated to delegates ... no decision effective, "
Julia: Including statutes?
Daniele: Yes, all topics.
Julia: ??? Within euroliquid. It is already operational?
Julia: "To have a dedicated unit of something like delegates in euroliquid to discuss PPEU issues and prepare the next meetings. But they are not exclusive and don't have decision making powers."
Julia: The motion was rejected.
Julia: We are pirates, we can do anything, you can still organize within the euroliquid.
Julia: Do we have any motions.
Julia: We don't have to decide on this motion, but you should know that it exists.
Krisna: "To change of the objectives: 'The association shall work to further the goals of its members, in particular by ...' and then follow with the original proposal"
Julia: This is just to let you know that there will be another discussion on objectives.
Discussion wether the talks are part of the meeting or not.
Krisna: So we close this discussion.
Krisna: We close the meeting for now.
Julia: There will be no more votes.
Julia: Ok, we're done.