The Pirate Party in the Netherlands is all for more direct democracy, like a referendum. A slogan of Piratenpartij is ‘informeer jezelf’ (inform yourself). People can very well make up their own mind about voting, or not voting and if they are; voting YES or NO. But a referendum done properly doesn’t stop there.
Piratenpartij has actively campaigned through http://dutchvote.eu and http://voorstem.nl where people can still inform themselves, discuss and volunteer insights on questions like; ‘what should be done differently, with regards to what this referendum is about for you’. This referendum involves Ukraïne also, as well as European Union member states. We encourage all to join the debate.
- On April first there was an online teleconferance between Piraten from Ukraine and the Netherlands, read about it here.
- Rico did an interview for radio on day of the vote
- Written interview by Rico Brouwer with pirates from Ukraine, Russia and the Netherlands, published on ‘Pirate Times’ and in Dutch on ‘The Post Online’
- http://dutchvote.eu The Dutch Vote (site mostly in English)
- http://voorstem.nl Vóór een échte stem (site mostly in Dutch)
- From our newsletter of march 2016, update about the referendum campaign:
Ancilla wrote a blogpost, Matthijs did too, GeenStijl picked up on that with a review, a Twitter handle was created and a Facebook page, the referendum wiki got translated into English and migrated into WordPress on the news sites called https://voorstem.nl and https://dutchvote.eu, Ancilla gave an interview on Keiserreport and the AlexJonesshow, we wrote a pressrelease about this campaign of the Pirate Party.
– So the referendum as a democratic instrument gets a real shot in the Nederland;
– So people know the Dutch Pirate Party as the political party that seaches debate on real topics and wants to learn real solutions rather than convince people of a point of view. Even without representation in parliament, without budget or being subsidized.
There’s an ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) provision in the DCFTA (trade agreement with Ukraine). In normal wordings it goes like this:
Article 89. The ISDS part will later be added [with the use of an arbitration panel] ‘to provide investor protection and procedures on how to deal with dispute between investor and state’.
Article 307; members to the arbitration panel
They could come from one member on behalf of the investor, one on behalf of the state and one appointed by both to act as chairperson. If parties fail to find a suitable panel, three judges will be selected through lot from the persons one or both parties nominated.
This comittee could rule that for example Shell, Chevron or Monsanto would suffer losses if the EU were to decide on a limitation of Shale gas, GMO or Roundup. The extend of lost investments and potential lossed revenue for said companies could then be leading in determining the size of the compensation EU taxpayer would have to pay to make up for potential losses by the investor, should EU want to adopt more environment friendly laws for example.