From Pirate Party Belgium
< Events/EGA:2013-09
Revision as of 13:35, 29 September 2013 by Sandb (talk | contribs) (Meeting notes unformatted v0.1)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


Introduced a third option for voting: next to

  • "yes" (green) or
  • "no" (red)

we introduce

  • "postponed" (white): voted unanimously yes
  • Minimum of 2 votes difference, else postponed automatically
  • Not 50% for green, then it is not yes?

Note takers:

  • sandb
  • Vincent L.
  • fred m.

Everybody counts votes if close call. General remark: rejected does not mean it definatly rejected,

Discussion on voting; do we go for classic voting and forgo the adaption?

  • 21 yes
  • 3 no
  • accepted

1. rejected

2.1 (french version): accepted

  • translation problem: radicale democratie should be directe democratie

2.2 accepted 2.3. accepted 2.4. accepted

3. rejected/postponed

4. rejected

5. rejected

  • 19 no
  • 14 yes

6. accepted

7. 23 vs 13 accepted

8. accepted (better written version of 9)

9. rejected 15 vs 24

10. accepted

11. Remark: this definition can be applied to every company accepted 21 vs 17 after recount how could we make anyone liable to use public facilities?

12. accepted

13. accepted remark: Assange is not a wistleblower, better if names were removed (voted as is, but could use an amendment)

14. accepted remark: better definition required for "net neutrality".

15. accepted; remarks: it's more or less already in there: but remarks about only postal system and human rights with similar initiative.

16. rejected; remarks: factual issue in the proposal since the press can be censored, what about private data protection

17. accepted 24 vs 11; remarks: fuzzy language

18. rejected ;remarks: what is "democratie radicale" ? is it "imposed democracy" ;) We need another word than "radical" (2.1)

19. rejected 14 vs 24

20. rejected ;remarks: fuzzy "what's being for the referendum ?" how do we define referendum ?

21. postponed 18 vs 16

22. rejected ;remarks: what does that mean ? we already have justice system

23. accepted ;remarks: this is about someone who's been elected, not for candidates;

24. accepted 20 vs ? ;remarks: the proposal is too vague, too general

25. rejected; remarks what do we mean by recognize ? (aknowledge existence or legitimity ?)

26. rejected - same remark as 25.

27. accepted

28. accepted

29. accepted 25 vs ?; remarks: vague and fuzzy ? ambiguous ? what does local economy mean? does it mean protectionism? note: does not explain, also does not say protectionism

30. rejected/postponed ;remarks : what does "resource" means; answer from author: means "resource based economy" needs clarification

31. accepted 20 vs 13; remarks: what's "alternative economy" ? see examples

32. rejected 14 vs 18

33. rejected ;remarks: not clear on what it really means

34. rejected ;remark: it's a statement, not a program point or opinion

35. accepted; anonymous

36. rejected ;remarks : need to change EU laws for that; the first part is already in 27;

37. accepted

38. accepted

39. accepted ; remarks : universal basic income (everyone); what's the definition of basic income ? ; also remarked: "factual error, labour is not an economic product"

40. accepted ; remarks : minimun wage (working people only)

41. accepted

42. rejected; remarks: this is demagogy, ideology, unclear, fuzzy

43.rejected, except by Kash; remarks : implies corporate citizenship? (==a company is having same right as a citizen)

44. rejected

45. rejected (awfully stated)

46. postponed ;17 vs 15 ;remarks : european law problem; very hard to realize

47. accepted

48. rejected 10/18 remark: who's "them" ? Pirates or citizens ?

49. accepted

50. accepted

51. accepted (rem: should state "a public audit" or something like that)

52. rejected ;remarks: 1. cannot be done in only one country, 2. should explicitely read a wage/profit "ratio". 3. is missing clear definition and is quite populist position; how would we explain this to a journalist

53. rejected

54. rejected 14 vs 17; remarks : lower cap but also upper cap limitation, should maybe say minimally

55. rejected ;remarks: Too vague, should say public financing (with money from the state), also who would finance a bank that has gone bust anyway? ; too anecdoctical, lack of big picture.

56. accepted; remarks: the national part could be left out

57. rejected remarks: why only bankers

Proposal to deal with running-out-of-time: ACCEPTED

   - whatever is not voted here today will be submitted on getopinionated
   - and will be voted on getopinionated
   - and will be valid as if elected on the EGA
   - with voting closing before the first november
   - only members will be able to vote: each Pirate will receive his/her membership via email, and then registrations will be closed (for security).
   - only proposals from the program will be voted
    • has been voted yes

58. rejected; unclear: what are policticians, while they are active or allways; only banks? ... ?

59. accepted unanymously

60. rejected

61. rejected ; remarks: this would mean we have to exit the euro

62. accepted (rem: what is a dubious investment ? who defines it ?)

EOEGA- End of General Assembly