Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Amelia Andersdotter (pirate party) youngest EU parilmentarian

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
November 22, 2011 2:54:10 AM



Quote:
Swedish MEP Amelia Andersdotter promises to battle corporate interests for IP reform

While many in America are unaware of it, the European Union recently went through a major overhaul of its government. The passage of the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon has finally gone into full effect after going "officially" into law in 2009 and struggling to be fully implemented in the time since.

Among the many important effects is a shakeup in the number of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) allotted to each member state. Some states like the UK and France saw their representation shrink, while others like Sweden saw their representation grow.

An unexpected side effect of this is that Sweden's Pirate Party, a party founded on a platform of intellectual property law reform, gained an extra seat in the EU Parliament. The pirates scored 7.1 percent of Sweden's total votes, which was enough to secure two seats, with Sweden's representation being bumped to 20 MEPs.

With the changes to the representative total finally complete, Pirate Party gal Amelia Andersdotter was just assigned to the second Pirate Party seat in Brussels, home of the EU Parliament. Ms. Andersdotter was the coordinator of "Young Pirate", an international youth outreach program from the Pirate Party. She came in second to only party chairman Christian Engström in Sweden's election.

At 24 she will be the youngest representative in the EU Parliament. She was only 21 when she received the votes that would eventually put her in office. She will serve through 2014.


http://www.dailytech.com/Pirate+Gal+Becomes+Youngest+EU...

It's just the state of the world today. One day nobody will honour our I.P because of general concensus and the internet. :/ 

Shame.
November 22, 2011 10:17:19 PM

I wish we could have that type of individual platforming in the US. The two party system just leaves us in a dysfunctional situation of trying to balance political belief as a lesser of 2 evils.
November 23, 2011 12:40:52 AM

Same in Australia.
November 23, 2011 2:11:00 AM

l0ckd0wn said:
I wish we could have that type of individual platforming in the US. The two party system just leaves us in a dysfunctional situation of trying to balance political belief as a lesser of 2 evils.

Good ol' George warned about that. He just wanted us to follow the constitution, but we are doing one terrible job on that.
November 23, 2011 4:04:37 AM

Parties should be illegal...but that won't stop ideology...unless Americans are truly stupid.
November 23, 2011 4:06:39 AM

dogman_1234 said:
Americans are truly stupid.

Agreed.
November 23, 2011 8:17:27 AM

Great job of quoting out of context.
November 23, 2011 11:01:33 AM

People only see what they want to see.

AMD sucks/rules!!!

I exploit it to be popular :) .
November 23, 2011 11:24:28 AM

Doggy I don't agree that the US is stupid but the two party system there, like ours here, is very restrictive.

Here the Greens movement has become a third force, displacing the Democrats after Don Chipp's retirement ...

Sadly the Greens have not adopted Don's old motto "keeping bastards honest" and their leader is possibly the dodgiest guy I have ever met.

I wouldn't buy anything he is selling ... the price is too high.

November 23, 2011 11:41:35 AM

I don't think multiple parties would solve the issues, or the lack of having a party association. Why? Because ultimately it comes down to a very few handful of choices that makes a candidate a 'party' member.

Strictly speaking, you can have higher taxes or lower taxes. That alone would create a party. You can't have higher spending and lower taxes. Lower taxes, lower spending, it becomes a party.

On that baseline, you get stuck having two parties. Other parties are built around specific causes which generally fail to attract a large enough following to get any political clout to make the changes necessary.

The US breaks down like this:

If you want higher taxes, higher spending, you are a Democrat.
If you want higher taxes, more spending on entitlements, less on military, you are a liberal.
Democrats and Liberals get lumped together.

If you want less spending, lower taxes, you are conservative.
If you want less spending on entitlement, more spending on military, and lower taxes, you are a Republican.
Again, conservative and Republican get lumped together.

If you want less government, you are a libertarian and get lumped in with the Republicans.

If the foundation matches up in a few key areas, you get two parties. For example, you have the Blue Dog Democrats. Fiscally Conservative with Democratic policies. They go both ways and get shunned/blessed by both sides when their political climate fits.
November 23, 2011 11:43:54 AM

Go through party line issues. You could be vastly for one side but if you differ on a few key issues, you'll be associated with the other party.
November 23, 2011 11:48:44 AM

If I am a labour centre man where do I fit then?

I must be a blue dog.

November 23, 2011 12:27:17 PM

l0ckd0wn said:
I wish we could have that type of individual platforming in the US. The two party system just leaves us in a dysfunctional situation of trying to balance political belief as a lesser of 2 evils.



l0ckd0wn, we finally agree on something. cheers!
November 23, 2011 8:08:40 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
l0ckd0wn, we finally agree on something. cheers!

Cheers to you sir. I half expected you to sign on to what Riser said, but alas you are more logical than I gave you credit for.

And on that note, I pretty much disagree across the board with your broad generalizations on what constitutes a party, Riser.

For instance right now, the biggest divide between the red and blues is ideological, nothing more. This, IMO, highlights the entirety of the dysfunction by having to cling to either one ideology or another while there is a huge gap in the middle ground which could spring forth it's own true centrists and problem solvers, but instead we see our congressmen nitpick and obstruct one another and nothing gets done.

On the basic ideas of capitalism, if you have more competition in the system then those voting will choose candidates that more represent their personal values. As of right now we have the far left and the far right, and as I said, a huge sprawling middle section that is littered with political landmines that act against anyone, from either side, venturing into this much more practical and pragmatic area of decision making and thinking.

riser said:
If the foundation matches up in a few key areas, you get two parties. For example, you have the Blue Dog Democrats. Fiscally Conservative with Democratic policies. They go both ways and get shunned/blessed by both sides when their political climate fits.


You highlight my point with this last tidbit you said right here. By having more parties, these folks in the middle could be their own individual party without having to subscribe to either side. The problem arises when they tack on more platforming points though. For instance if you are campaigning on the topic of creating jobs/fixing economy/etc. then there should be little talk of abortion or furthering the Christian agendas (Keep in mind I used this as a very broad example to show the gravity of the situation and it's current dysfunction).
November 23, 2011 10:30:13 PM

Reynod said:
If I am a labour centre man where do I fit then?

I must be a blue dog.


I remember in law when we had to make hypothetical political parties.

I made a party, called it Australian Ethics...

Our slogan was "keep the bastards honest".

Our policy? To run a school-wide piracy audit.

We were booed off state.
!