This is really interesting coming from the Pirate Party. While I remember them for the protests against ACTA some 12 years ago, their biggest success - the Czech Pirate party is extremely pro-Brussels and has hardly breathed a word against it.
Otherwise, my opinion is that this would be either impossible to enforce or the cost to do so would outweigh the benefits in a massive way.
> the Czech Pirate party is extremely pro-Brussels and has hardly breathed a word against it.
I find "pro-" or "anti-" Brussels to be a false dichotomy. You can be _for_ the existence of the EU, but be critical of how it works, of the proposals coming from one of its institutions, and actively participate in improving the organisation.
>This is really interesting coming from the Pirate Party. While I remember them for the protests against ACTA some 12 years ago, their biggest success - the Czech Pirate party is extremely pro-Brussels and has hardly breathed a word against it.
Well, Marcel Kolaja, who was voted from the Czech Pirate Party to the european parliament certainly comments on these things - like on an earlier round for this in July:
The Czech pirate party was built on internal democracy without any failsafety and got swathed by hundreds (thousands today) of leftists/statists indifferent to the original ideas.
Basically none of their voting base (young adults, mostly) has any idea about the origin of the party. They were lured to the party because it supports green and social statist politics.
Note: I don't think statism in itself is wrong, but I don't like the particular kind of state they're pushing for. I think their goals could be accomplished by supporting people more directly e. g. by supporting independent social organizations, which I think would be more in line with the original pirate ideas.
However I must say that their latest program (for the parliamentary elections) was acceptable to me. But they're nearly (4/200) out of the parliament now.
A friend of mine was the leader of the Norwegian Pirate Party. He proposed a new way to organize society in a decentralized, professionalized, yet accountable way. His main issue was that politicians would promise a bunch of nonsense, and then get voted in based upon those promises, but after the fact they would never do anything about it. Even after breaking all the promises, most politicians never have to answer for lying or not accomplishing what got them into a position in the first place. One of the concrete tools he alluded to when speaking about these flaws was the FixMyStreet app and website.
While this is true, some of it is because voters are ignorant and prefer politicians who lie to them. Oh sure, they'll say they want honest politicians, but then the ones who promise them the moon are the ones they'll actually vote for. Someone telling them, "sorry but your policy idea is hideously impractical and would be extremely expensive for little benefit" won't get their vote, even if it's true.
I think it's a bit more complex than that. I'm sure most voters have a real hope that their politician is actually speaking the truth. And sometimes the politician is even honest about wanting to make it happen. But then comes the intricacies of parliamentary constellations, horsetrading, lobbyism, and filibustering, and so forth.
My problem with the Pirate Party is that they are part of the Greens group = anti nuclear activists, let alone not being represented at all in my country. I'd probably vote for them even ignoring this, because at least if feels like choosing the lesser of several evils. Voting is like choosing between the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
Most Pirate Parties are pro-nuclear. But they are part of the Green group because it's the closes match you'll get.
They would like to form their own group, but they don't have enough pirates elected from enough countries yet to qualify. So they're stuck with going with the best option.
Besides, as long as greens and pirates share the same goal ... the'll work out the rest. This way the greens may move away from the anti nuclear stance quicker.
A technology which requires exceptional people for it to be managed successfully should not be a technology that puts centuries-long commitments on society.
Yes. But 33 seats are gained by the other party due to mechanism known as circling, which allows voters to give up to four preferential votes to specific candidates. The Majors Party is based around this "circling". For example, candidates from 10th place were voted in - in regions with 3/4/5 seats.
The coalition agreement aimed to resolve this issue but failed.
Otherwise, my opinion is that this would be either impossible to enforce or the cost to do so would outweigh the benefits in a massive way.