We are candidates for the Pirate Party in the European Parliamentary Elections - Ask us anything!

Do you feel that PPUK is regarded as a serious and "real" political party by the other, larger and well known political parties?

If not, how do you plan to change that?

As a UK voter living in London, I would take them a lot more seriously if I could vote for them.

We'll get there, the problem as always for smaller parties is cost, volunteers and candidates, it takes a lot of effort and quite a bit of time to get to the point where you can do what you need to do - we simply don't have the several tens of thousands of pounds it would cost just to stand and use the mail out for more than one region this time around.

Do you feel that PPUK is regarded as a serious and "real" political party by the other, larger and well known political parties?

Yes, to a greater or lesser degree based on the party. North-West Labour MEP Arlene McCarthy, in her e-mail to other S&D members called us, and the Greens, out by name as an electoral threat when trying to convince her colleagues to vote against Net Neutrality, for example.

Likewise, the Green Party are also worried about us.

We are still a new political movement, though, so it will take time for our presence to work its way through the political system.

Likewise, the Green Party are also worried about us.

Should they be though? I've supported both the Pirates and the Greens for a couple of years, and I think they're perfectly compatible with each other. The Green Party takes net neutrality/privacy etc very seriously (in contrast to the 'main' parties), whilst their social and environmental policies are strong (and evidence-based) in areas where the Pirate Party is lacking.

Clearly the Greens and Pirates are in different places on the political spectrum, but I'm always cautious of political splintering when it comes to fringe parties. Thoughts?

The priorities are important. The Greens picked up what amounts to Pirate Party policy on both copyright and digital rights and use and campaign on it, but they don't seem all that committed across the board. That is to say that if you look, you will see Green support for TV style watersheds being applied to the internet etc... (I'm told this is just the Greens in the eastern part of the UK, but its a policy from May this year..).

The dedication to all of those aspect seem a little lacking, although they should be perfectly in line with Green principles! The question is whether they will push on the issues (and especially whether they would do so without a Pirate MEP in the European Group and a national Pirate Party talking about it at the national and local level..).

There are some incompatibilities too - we've seen Green party support for the destruction of GMO research crops... Now Pirates may not like the idea of GMO from a patent perspective, or indeed from a biodiversity perspective (and the lock-ins, dubious and not well tested pesticides/issues with the openness of some of that research etc..) but we won't reject the whole field of study, or work to undermine the research.

The same goes with energy - you can't simply rule out a whole group of technologies (with nuclear), especially given they have the potential to be very effective and could well solve a lot of the issues we do have with energy production and pollution/emissions/climate change.

Fair response.

That is to say that if you look, you will see Green support for TV style watersheds being applied to the internet etc... (I'm told this is just the Greens in the eastern part of the UK, but its a policy from May this year..).

I haven't heard of this before. However, this certainly isn't part of their manifesto. (Pages 32/33 Warning: PDF)

The same goes with energy - you can't simply rule out a whole group of technologies (with nuclear), especially given they have the potential to be very effective and could well solve a lot of the issues we do have with energy production and pollution/emissions/climate change.

I agree here. This one Green policy which I do not support. Having said that, since I agree with 99% of their policy I feel they most strongly represent me.

My point was more that the focus should be on challenging the mainstream political parties - rather than other parties who share many similar ideals.

I haven't heard of this before. However, this certainly isn't part of their manifesto. (Pages 32/33 Warning: PDF)

No, it isn't (and there is a paragraph of digital rights in there too) - Although I'm a tad concerned about the EU wide ID card type thing for accessing benefits between EU states in that one.. But that is a manifesto - anything left out is simply not what is being run on and, to be fair it may be a localised issues or one that indicates some division. Take a look at this set of documents, including the pdf.

My point was more that the focus should be on challenging the mainstream political parties - rather than other parties who share many similar ideals.

Indeed, and I think the party have, and continue to do that fairly well, with the capacity we have in this election. We are campaigning on policy, challenging Labour, the Conservatives, UKIP and the Lib Dems where we think they are wrong (and the greens for that matter). As a party, we sort of owe that to voters really...

Given that the German version of the pirate party essentially self-destructed in a flurry of unbridled nerd rage, inability to reach public consensus, fundamental misunderstanding of how to survive in German parliament and child pornography allegations, going all the way from over 5% (!!!) support to not being taken seriously by anyone anymore, how do you feel about the future of your party? What, if any, steps have you taken not to suffer exactly the same fate in the UK?
Best regards,
a disillusioned voter

The Pirate Party in the UK is organised entirely differently and uses somewhat more traditional, but functional approaches to how it actually operates. Its important that the policy, approach, candidate selection and everything else are as democratic as possible, but a party needs to be able to make decisions and act.. That gives the UK a bit of an advantage. The other problem the German party had was a huge amount of success relatively quickly, that's hard to deal with, but - Good news! - The UK political system is pretty hard to get into, geographic constituencies and FPTP mean you have to be fairly capable just to compete (and we are competing where we are standing). That should help us to not end up in a similar situation.

Your sister party in Germany, Piratenpartei, seems to be destroying itself (nazi and populists infiltration, well known people like Udo Vetter leaving the party, etc.) , and keeps losing votes in the polls. Currently, they are at ~2%, while they were at ~10% three years ago. Do other pirate parties in Europe have similar results, and do you think the Piratenpartei will recover itself and get more votes the next elections?

The German Pirate Party grew very quickly and I think its not unfair to say that they struggled with that growth a little, but the German political system and even the way PPDE is organised is pretty different from the UK (and elsewhere). I hope they are able to recover, get stronger and grow to be the party that Germany needs them to be.

I am a creator of digital content, that's how I pay my rent. Why should I vote for you and how will I be able to do what I love if all your dreams come true?

The same way you do now by creating things people like. The Pirate Party advocates reform, not abolition of copyright.

If anything you will be far more to create because you can build on and borrow from material that has existed for decades but is still locked away by creators and publishers. As an added bonus, by not screwing up digital distribution, or locking you out of the internet for not being a huge company, we'll make sure you have all the advantages you need to be more successful than you would be if the internet were regulated heavily and net neutrality abandoned.

You may however find that you can't create one thing and live off it for the rest of your life, whilst I realise that for most artists and creators this isn't the case now (sure, their work is not available to anyone, but the aren't getting paid for it either) it might be annoying for the lucky few - however we hope that on balance this will mean you create more and we, as a society are more able to appreciate and see what you do.

Thanks for your answer! Being able to improve the work of others in faster cycles is definitely something I want for mankind. However, I was hoping for something more revolutionary but I guess the way you answered this is very professional. I just thought that since this hits one of your core topics, you'd have some kind of grand vision to share.

Well to a certain extent, we are starting to live that grand vision. If you are looking at how we communicate information, create content and use it now compared to even 10 years ago, you realise that the term revolution absolutely applies. What we are worried about now is that revolution being derailed by those that aren't benefiting from it commercially.

Distribution of anything is now easy, crypto-currencies provide rapid and secure methods of payment, with a 3D printer you can have someone scan something, communicate it to you and recreate it.. that's pretty amazing, yet there are people out there that want to not only over-regulate those things, but also change the rules to make innovation harder.

We can't predict the future, but we aren't scared of living in it and we are going to make sure it's as good as we can make it!

There is inherent and un reconcilable tension in your stated defence policies.

Defence of the realm is a primary responsibility of government. The United Kingdom must be able to meet its own defence needs as well as its obligations to defend overseas territories and allies. Whilst we are not in favour of so-called 'pre-emptive defence' or an aggressive defence posture, we realise that the UK must be ready to respond to aggression or threats to our way of life. We firmly believe that our Armed Forces must be well equipped with the appropriate equipment for the tasks we ask them to undertake, and trained for the roles in which they find themselves.

The British Armed Forces are rightly regarded as the best in the world, and we must ensure that we take care of them to the best of our ability and use them only when absolutely necessary. All members of the Armed Forces should be secure in the knowledge that the country will not desert them once they complete their terms of service.

The overwhelming majority of our military advantages and intelligences comes from our alliance and cooperation with the United States. They provide us with immense amounts of information, technology, logistical support, technical support, investment, export and import orders which keep our defence industry afloat and, to put it bluntly, unconditional guarantees of defensive protection for Britain and Western Europe. In exchange we provide what is effectively defacto unconditional support to American interventionism abroad which, with regards to the current global war on terror, means diplomatic and military assistance to foreign interventions which you claim to be opposed to. This is not a buffet where we can take or leave what we want. It is a clear and understood transaction from both sides and is at the heart of NATO's relevance in the 21st century.

When it comes to this, the question is simple and the answer can be boiled down to a single word. Do you support the continuation of the Atlantic Alliance?

If your answer is no, you are going to have to massively increase the defence budget to get anything near the same level of military capacity.

The UK has actually managed to do a pretty good job of handing off technology, defence research, training and support to the US, essentially for free (sometimes literally for free) whilst the UK is now almost entirely dependent on US logistical support. We are in a slightly absurd position when we share R&D information, but then can't compete with the US on arms sales and can't buy gear based on UK development because it either isn't suited to our requirements or too expensive.. The US spends a lot of money on defence, but damn, its not very good at getting value for money...

taken together, especially the loss of logistical support does hamper the UKs ability to act in its own defence interests. That isn't a problem when ours and the USs align, but it could be a massive problem in the future and means that the UK does have to do a bit of decoupling.

I think the answer, here has to be broader cooperation with the US and other allies (NATO exists for that, but its not the only mechanisms) as well as ensuring that the UK military maintains its core competencies and is capable of delivering a credible defence without US support. That capability doesn't have to be massive, but it does need to be far more autonomous.

So, that is not an answer to the question I asked. It is a solid answer to 'should we increase our military spending to achieve tha biology to act unilaterally independently of the US' but not 'Do you Support the continuation of the Atlantic Alliance'.

The issue at the moment is that Britain is tied to backing the US in any and all it's foreign endeavours to maintain the alliance. Staying in the Alliance has its benefits, but significant drawbacks. Leaving the alliance similarly has massive benefits and significant drawbacks.

My problem with the stated policy and your response is that it presupposes that we can have our cake and eat it when the Americans have made it clear that this is an either or situation.

Fair response - I think the point is that we have to work with more people, if the US doesn't like it then fine - we have to act in our interests. I actually don't think the US can do that and I think, as with the Syria stuff from earlier in the year, the UK actually has a lot more influence than the US would be willing to admit.

I don't think we should set aside the alliance we have with the US (either through NATO or other agreements) but we absolutely need to make sure it does what we need it to without gutting our own capabilities and, equally as importantly, it doesn't put us in a position where we do things, or are seen to be supporting things we shouldn't support.

I don't see any position as unmovable and I think with the US and military cooperation, there is a lot of room for change and improvement. Plus, more independent capacity does mean that are both less dependent on and more valuable to alliance partners.

So, the whole point of the alliance is that the Americans can take it as a given. That is what they like. That is what makes it valuable to them. That is what they are paying for, why they give us intelligence and we share mutual capacities. What you are describing would be a change from the current status quo to something akin to what Australia or Canada would have.

Again, nothing wrong with that, but it would result in a significant reduction in military capacity. In order to maintain our current levels of military output, there would need to be significant increases in military spending to compensate for the reduced augmentation from the Americans. Would you prioritise this over over forms of government spending, and how would you do that when the general public do not consider defence spending important at this point?

So, the whole point of the alliance is that the Americans can take it as a given. That is what they like.

Except it isn't. On intelligence specifically (and as we have seen over the last however long) there is real partnership, its not a one way street. Some of that needs to be seriously curtailed and oversight needs to massively improve, but its still a mutual effort. When it comes to various other aspects of military cooperation, the UK provides basing and support in areas the US can't (and the US does the same to the UK) and there is real division of effort. In short, if the UK ceased cooperation with the US, the US would also face significant cost increases. That's why the UK works with the US, as well as NZ/AUS/CAN etc..

but it would result in a significant reduction in military capacity

A withdrawal would, a change might. As the policy suggests, the UK does have to become more self sufficient in some areas, but we do pay for the US support currently provided - as long as the costs are managed, they shouldn't be excessive (and with a reduction in operational tempo over the next year, as well as changes in procurement should be achievable without a massive increase in defence spending).

You will note too that the priority shift to conventional forces should actually be fairly cost neutral, yes pay, training and kit aren't cheap, but 'cheaper' than the alternatives. The level of US support for catastrophic situations is unlikely to change (its directly in the US interest), but frankly the cost of our commitment to the US over the last decade and a bit has been extremely high in lives and cash terms and not been anything like as directly in our interests. Would military spending be prioritised? No. But as with everything else, we'd look at the evidence to see what the most effective balance is, based on what people in the UK want and what is needed to maintain a proper defensive posture.

Does Britain really need "anything near the same level of military capacity" as at present.

IMHO no, it does not all. All it's there for is to make people like Tony Blair feel self-important as they play at being a world power; at the expense of the lives of lots of people who live in places like Iraq. Spending e.g. £ billions on Nuclear submarines is a colossal waste of money.

The point is sort of to make sure it has the right level of capability (including in reserve) to be able to deliver on it's defence obligations. What isn't needed or desirable is a massive force used arbitrarily..

Why are so many parties focussed on being anti-euro, as somebody who works in the technology trade, this is where a large amount of our business comes from.

Do you not think the Pirate Party image could be improved? I dislike wearing suits, but I wouldn't wear a hoodie for professional marketing shots.

What kinds of things do you think should be patentable, if at all? Do you think some of your policies risk scaring away big business?

Do you not think the Pirate Party image could be improved? I dislike wearing suits, but I wouldn't wear a hoodie for professional marketing shots.

Personally, it's damn refreshing to see someone standing for political office who dresses like I do on a daily basis. Traditional shots of politicians wearing suits when they visit schools or offices just makes them look like a separate class rather than another ordinary person who just wants to make things better.

Plus, I spend enough time in a suit for all of them..

Have the pirate party ever considered running in the Scottish parliament?

The additional member system of electing MSPs means that its possible for minority parties to gain seats.

Have the pirate party ever considered running in the Scottish parliament?

We stood candidates in the last Scottish Parliament elections in the West of Scotland and Glasgow regions and we'll probably stand candidates in the next one as well.

Of course, if Scotland decides to vote for independence, then our Scottish members will have to set up Pirate Party Scotland first :)

Does the PPUK support Scottish independence?

The Party supports self determination and I think our Scottish members were split so at this point I don't think there is an answer - I know Maria has said there has to be a referendum, but would prefer Scotland not to leave the UK (which is pretty much my position too).

I'm from Germany. Gave you all of my four votes last election. Was very frustrated with you not even reaching 3 damn percent.

Why did this happen and what are you doing to change that outcome?

As Jack has said, we aren't the German Pirate Party.. but what I will do is go and fetch someone from the German party to answer your question.

What ever happened to Andrew Robinson, I used to talk to him about 5 years ago and he mentioned he was the head of the Pirate Party.

He was replaced by /u/lozkaye a few years ago, but is still a productive member of the party (and I assume society in general!)

[deleted]

We don't have one in the UK right now, but other Pirate Parties do and I know that /u/lozkaye was talking to one of the Swedish Pirate Party leaders/organisers a little while back and that we were going to have a discussion about how best to get things rolling. It may well be that you could help us set that in motion...

I actually like you guys but from what I've heard you're totally anti-nuclear power.

Is this likely to change?

Good, news for you, we aren't and haven't ever been in the UK (The German Pirate Party is IIRC, but then that's down to their membership...).

How many legs between the lot of you?

Wooden or regular?

Are you going to turn into another UKIP? Single issue parties are shady.

Not if I can help it and we aren't a single issue party, its all about priority.

I am already down for voting for you guys on 22/05, time to let the 'mainstream' parties know we have had enough.

One question I wanted to know though, will you be more transparent than the other parties as to what you do, what you claim in expenses and all that stuff? So you can be held up as an example of transparency and accountability to other parties and set the new standard

EDIT BTW finally got round to signing up as a PPUK Member,

Thanks! We will be fully transparent about all expenses. We wouldn't be worth listening to if we didn't follow our own advice on transparency and accountability.

The party also already exceeds reporting criteria for the Electoral commission and has an additional transparency thing in their accounts - See the [2012 accounts](www.pirateparty.org.uk/media/uploads/SOA_Public_2012.pdf).

Do you have any extra contact with the Swedish "Piratpartiet" that is currently running again after getting 2 seats last election?

We speak to their MEPs, leadership and members - Loz Kaye spoke at their European Election Launch too IIRC.

small disclaimer : I've already voted for you lot. I have noticed that the party isn't even listed on "who should I vote for" sites which match people to parties who share their values. Why is this?

I'm not a candidate (but I've been contacting those sites on behalf of the party, so well placed to answer...). Essentially its usually one of two things. Either, they don't know we have policy - which is generally the smaller policy comparison sites, or they have some fairly arbitrary conditions. When it comes to the conditions its often that your party has at least one (or in some cases 3..) elected representatives at the EU level/National level.

Now personally I would argue its a bad thing, mainly because it actually creates a barrier for small parties. That said, there are 100's of small parties, many with only very notional policy, so I also understand a line has to be drawn. From our end that means the best way to move forward is to do more, get better and campaign on policy. Hopefully that will see us included!

What is your favorite rum?

Based on post election and event drinks I can exclusively confirm that both spiced white rum and dark rum appear to favoured, with the dark rum generally going down more rapidly.

It may however be a shocking revelation that (and as a non-candidate I can say this) I prefer port.

Port is a perfectly acceptable drink aboard ship sir!

And off one!

can I vote for you even if I live in Slovakia?

There is information available from the Electoral commission that should give you more of an idea of what your situation is and how you would go about voting.

[deleted]

Generally only when we make a mistake with our lasers.

Why no candidates in London?

We do have a local election candidate in Lamberth, however we simply do not have the resources to stand everywhere in the country, as much as we would like to.

It costs £5000 per region to even stand a list of candidates as a deposit. Printing and the logistics of delivering hundreds of thousands of flyers to households costs a lot of money as well. We have no large financial donors, we rely solely on membership fees and small individual contributions to fund our activities.

If you'd like to help fund us, we're currently running a crowdfunding campaign, every donation helps :)

I have a standing order set up and donating money to the party every month. Just seems a bit odd that it is not an area you're fielding candidates for given the demographics (lot og young people, lot of technology workers, lot of Europeans), and that it is the capital

To field candidates properly (and to spend your money in a way that actually makes an impact) we need a few things to come together at the same time - firstly, we need actual candidates, secondly, we need the money to run the elections and thirdly we need the people to help with the work on the ground and on-line. For the last couple of years that has meant the North, mainly because a lot of activity popped up around Loz standing in Manchester. Essentially having a candidate creates activity, gets people interested and makes it easier to find candidates and support.

Now the good news is that we do now have a committed and capable candidate in Mark Chapman, standing in Lambeth. That has brought the activity level for the London branch up significantly and given them something to rally around, it has also brought in more volunteers and at least two additional potential candidates in London.

We need to keep that process going, and we should be more able to now too!

Why would you want a European central army?

Why would you even want a central EU governing body that tries to force laws that obviously cant work for all the different cultures at the same time.

Have they stated they want such a thing? Sounds contrary to the very core of the pirate philosophy. Here's the answer of one of the two current pirate MEPs (from the Swedish party).

Do you think that the EU’s defence co-operation should be deepened in any way?

Christian Engström (Pirate Party) - No. More powers should not be given to the EU as long as it remains so undemocratic, and definitely not its own army. The Pirate Party wants a brand new EU treaty which will be adopted in a referendum. We can discuss what the EU should and should not do in conjunction with that.

I did the official euro parliament test to see the stances of most parties and that is what they told me. But that was from the dutch party, so glad to hear the swedish party doesnt agree. Pretty sloppy though that the same party can have contradicting stances on matters.

Sounds contrary to the very core of the pirate philosophy.

Yeha thats what I thought too, if I have time I might make a screenshot and translate.

https://twitter.com/ElinevdVorm/status/458588368352587777

This Janmaarten Batstra which is an EU parliament canditate and dutch pirateparty member says:

@ElinevdVorm @Piratenpartij maar bijv. 1 leger=lagere kosten, dus meer geld voor zorg, privacy, etc. Nu rijdt EU met tig merken tanks...

Which rougly translates as :

@ElinevdVorm @Piratenpartij eg only one army = lower costs, so more money for health care, privacy, etc. Now EU drives in tanks of many brands ...

Pretty weird...

If you put the entire conversation trough a translator (for the non-dutch speaking here) You see this guy has a pretty weird opinion...

You need to take into account that Pirate Parties aren't a homogeneous group, they share the same principles, but are pretty democratic so they will represent what people in the country they operate in are - In much the same way that Green, Socialist and even Conservative parties aren't identical across borders, nor are we.

In fact there are quite a few differences between the UK party and other EU based parties (especially on things like the Euro, but also on issues like nuclear power). It can't really be any other way, we represent what our members in the UK want, and what our principles mean in the UK context.

I understand, but this doesnt seem much like a difference but more like oposite, contradicting differences.

So you dont trust the EU with data, how do you trust them with tanks.

Which is a pretty good question imo.

He answer's with

We trust the Netherlands even less than the EU. A "own" defense has long deceased.

So they dont trust the EU, but also not their own country?

I mean I understand you can't all have agreeing members, or agreeing parties across europe. But this man seems to be on the opposite of the spectrum when compared to the other pirateparties.

we represent what our members in the UK want, and what our principles mean in the UK context.

Sorry to go off-topic then

Sorry to go off-topic then

No, that's fine!

To put it into context though, the Netherlands spends around 10% of what the UK does on defence, so you might see why from a Dutch perspective it might look like an attractive idea..

I'm gussing I can't vote for you guys if I don't live in the UK, right?

You might be (have been, not sure when you would have had to post stuff back) able to if you are a UK citizen and registered to vote from abroad.

Can you link us to a detailed economic policy?

https://www.pirateparty.org.uk/policy/economy-and-jobs/home

EDIT: If you click the specific polices bit at the bottom, should give you all the detail you need :)

There is also the Digital economy and rights section that has a bearing on economic policy, and some social policy too that may be relevant.