4.1 Membership

[tuoni]

I would like to recommend that 4.1 is amended to remove the requirement for someone to be a resident foreign national or a UK citizen in order to become a member. This is a carry-over from the original rule which required members to be on the electoral roll in order to join. I see no reason why, for instance, a German national living in Germany should not be able to join the UK party if they so wished.

Any thoughts? I'm especially interested in any reasons why it should remain as it is.

The only legal requirement is to do with donations, and that doesn't even apply under £500.

[azrael]

You are right, this is a carry over from the earliest constitution.

If there are no legal requirements for this, I see no reason why we shouldn't discuss the removal.

I am trying to think of any reason we wouldn't want to change it. The following example shows quite how far I have to reach to think of something...

Off the top of my head (and not likely) is that this would allow a sudden influx of <insert non-UK country here> Pirates to join PPUK and become a majority block to drive PPUK decision making along a route suitable to PP<whatever> (not for malicious purposes), but not otherwise suitable for UK-based members.

Of course the exact same danger exists if Conservative Party members wanted to do something similar ... however in such a case there would be clear foul play and the Board could declare Conservative Party membership as incompatible. Yes the same is possible to do regarding PP<whatever> ... but I would never ever ever want to be in a position where membership of another Pirate Party was incompatible with membership of PPUK.

[borgs8472]

It sounds good to me. Can anyone clarify why the original electoral role membership criteria was initially put in place for comparison though?

Also, this may or may not require a clause (if we don't have it already) limiting a person owning more than one account - whilst making it easy for members registering to donate extra at the same time.

[M2Ys4U]

According to the wiki no such criteria existed:

MEMBERSHIP

Membership is open to citizens of Great Britain and resident foreign nationals who share its aims and who are not members of any organisation which the National Executive Committee (“NEC”) has declared is incompatible with membership of the Party.
Members must pay membership fees as set by the NEC.
If a member of the Party subsequently joins such an organisation which the NEC has declared to be incompatible with membership of the Party, or if the member is found to be a member of such an organisation then their membership of the Party will be automatically revoked without return of membership fees.
Members shall be entitled to vote in all relevant internal Party elections.
Members shall not act in a manner which brings the party into disrepute or is likely to bring the party into disrepute. If a member is suspected of behaving in such a fashion he/she will be asked to explain their actions to the NEC or a designated sub-committee to explain their actions. Their party membership may be suspended or removed by said committee.

https://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/ind ... &oldid=869

[tuoni]

According to the wiki no such criteria existed:

MEMBERSHIP

Membership is open to citizens of Great Britain and resident foreign nationals who share its aims and who are not members of any organisation which the National Executive Committee (“NEC”) has declared is incompatible mbership of the Party.

https://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/ind ... &oldid=869

You mean... Apart from where you quoted it?

[M2Ys4U]

According to the wiki no such criteria existed:

MEMBERSHIP

Membership is open to citizens of Great Britain and resident foreign nationals who share its aims and who are not members of any organisation which the National Executive Committee (“NEC”) has declared is incompatible mbership of the Party.

https://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/ind ... &oldid=869

You mean... Apart from where you quoted it?

I mean it says nothing about being on the electoral roll, sorry.

[tuoni]

<snip>
I mean it says nothing about being on the electoral roll, sorry.

Ah, I see. While it obviously wasn't in the original text of the constitution (from your quote) it definitely was a rule - in fact, until Gavman took over as Treasurer, each membership application was being checked against the electoral roll.

This is one of those good news/bad news stories.

The good news is that new members and money keeps pouring in.

The bad news is that you're killing your treasurer in the process. So please, please, follow this advice if joining up or making a donation:

1. You can't join if you don't have an address in the UK where you are registered to vote. Please double-check to ensure you give a current address and not one from long ago when you lived abroad and spent your days treading grapes into wine and swimming with dolphins. Whilst we love to hear about supporters in France, the US and even Australia, you might do more good if you join the Pirate Parties in those countries! [...]

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2009 ... r-sinking/

This was from 2 days after PPUK was formally registered. (I actually remembered it as "You're killing your treasurer" rather than "Treasurer is sinking" but meh)

[M2Ys4U]

Ah, that makes sense.

[ajehals]

I'd like to briefly add to this:

There are a number of people who are entitled to vote in UK elections may not currently permitted to join the party due to the specific wording of the constitution - Residents of Gibraltar are permitted to vote as part of the UK's South East Region of the European Union.

It would seem appropriate that anyone who wishes to take part in the Democratic process in the UK is eligible to join the party and donate and, as we move forward, to vote for a pirate if we are in a position to provide them with that option too.

There are also no down sides, this isn't going to increase our costs and it isn't going to increase the administrative burden, our constitution is simply preventing us from ensuring that we are open as we can be. Obviously it isn't a huge number of people but it is still something that if we can change, we should.

[tuoni]

It sounds good to me. Can anyone clarify why the original electoral role membership criteria was initially put in place for comparison though?

As with a lot of the restrictions put in place at the very start, it was mostly down to people finding themselves potentially (often for the first time) directly legally responsible for something not being followed properly, mixed with an enthusiasm to follow the letter of the law not only to a 'T' but above and beyond all possible reproach. Also in the mix was misunderstandings being re-inforced by repeated tellings. I am fairly reliably informed I was incorrect in this assertion, I shall withdraw everything struck through until such a time as anyone publicly justifies otherwise.

I know that the original treasurer was under the (mistaken) impression that to join a political party, you had to be on the electoral roll It seems there was a legitimate reason that in the party's beginning membership was limited to those on the electoral roll, which was a view shared by the then NEC at large - hence, in order to join PPUK, you had to be on the electoral roll. So far, "we" have opened membership as far as is possible under our constitution but that is now the stumbling block. The guidance on this sort of thing is far, far clearer now than it was in 2009.

Also, this may or may not require a clause (if we don't have it already) limiting a person owning more than one account - whilst making it easy for members registering to donate extra at the same time.

I don't see why that would need to be in the constitution given that political donations are covered by law...

[ajehals]

Is it just me, or shouldn't the aim with our constitution, much like with legislation, be to have the rules bit as small, simple and readable as is possible within the law and obviously to meet our needs?

[borgs8472]

I don't see why [multiple membership restrictions] would need to be in the constitution given that political donations are covered by law...

There are other reasons, such as membership being stripped effecting all accounts, running multiple personas to hold conflicting official positions and general guidelines I'd run if I were running a forum for instance.

[tuoni]

I don't see why [multiple membership restrictions] would need to be in the constitution given that political donations are covered by law...

There are other reasons, such as membership being stripped effecting all accounts, running multiple personas to hold conflicting official positions and general guidelines I'd run if I were running a forum for instance.

Forum sockpuppetry is slightly different to holding more than one membership of a political party.

Maybe

PPUK membership is open to any legally entitled individual who shares its aims and who are not members of any organisation which the National Executive Committee (“NEC”) has declared is incompatible with membership of the Party and have not previously had their good standing stripped by the Board

?

Wording is up in the air, here...

[ajehals]

I don't see why [multiple membership restrictions] would need to be in the constitution given that political donations are covered by law...

There are other reasons, such as membership being stripped effecting all accounts, running multiple personas to hold conflicting official positions and general guidelines I'd run if I were running a forum for instance.

I actually can't figure out what the above means. My best guess would be that someone is conflating accounts with membership. There is no requirement for a member to have an account... Members are people, not accounts, regardless of their personas or anything else. Having standing or membership stripped doesn't have an impact on someone having an account on the forums or wiki for example.

[azrael]

PPUK membership is open to any legally entitled individual who shares its aims and who are not members of any organisation which the National Executive Committee (“NEC”) has declared is incompatible with membership of the Party and have not previously had their good standing stripped by the Board

Wording is up in the air, here...

Technically we don't need the last bit as other parts of the constitution insinuate that someone can be a member while not having good standing. And previous changes have replaced NEC with Board for declaring incompatible memberships. That would give:

Membership is open to any legally entitled individual who shares its aims and who are not members of any organisation which the Board of Governors ("Board") has declared is incompatible with membership of the Party.

Is there a need to define what 'legally entitled' means? If not in the constitution itself, then in this discussion about this amendment (so if this clause makes it into the constitution, future interpretors would be able to refer back here to see exactly what is meant by 'legally entitled').

[azrael]

I don't see why [multiple membership restrictions] would need to be in the constitution given that political donations are covered by law...

There are other reasons, such as membership being stripped effecting all accounts, running multiple personas to hold conflicting official positions and general guidelines I'd run if I were running a forum for instance.

Is there any perceived wiggle-room in the constitution as to make it seem as if a single individual could hold multiple memberships? I hope not. If they do that would be pretty fraudulent.
I think to avoid such things we don't need specific constitutional measures (unless there is something in there that makes it seem this would be acceptable - in such a case that would need amending) - rather we need a Treasurer (and I am sure we have one) who ensures each new member is actually a separate individual from all other members.

[tuoni]

PPUK membership is open to any legally entitled individual who shares its aims and who are not members of any organisation which the National Executive Committee (“NEC”) has declared is incompatible with membership of the Party and have not previously had their good standing stripped by the Board

Wording is up in the air, here...

Technically we don't need the last bit as other parts of the constitution insinuate that someone can be a member while not having good standing. And previous changes have replaced NEC with Board for declaring incompatible memberships. That would give:

Membership is open to any legally entitled individual who shares its aims and who are not members of any organisation which the Board of Governors ("Board") has declared is incompatible with membership of the Party.

Sorry, my mistake. Doing too many things at once

Is there a need to define what 'legally entitled' means? If not in the constitution itself, then in this discussion about this amendment (so if this clause makes it into the constitution, future interpretors would be able to refer back here to see exactly what is meant by 'legally entitled').

Well, that was a bad wording of it but I couldn't think of anything else right then. Basically, I put that in there because (for example) some countries might not allow you to join foreign parties, some have age restrictions on memberships, that sort of thing.

[azrael]

Is there a need to define what 'legally entitled' means? If not in the constitution itself, then in this discussion about this amendment (so if this clause makes it into the constitution, future interpretors would be able to refer back here to see exactly what is meant by 'legally entitled').

Well, that was a bad wording of it but I couldn't think of anything else right then. Basically, I put that in there because (for example) some countries might not allow you to join foreign parties, some have age restrictions on memberships, that sort of thing.

Reasonable enough... I suppose if someone in another country is not allowed to join PPUK there's an argument for us allowing them to join if we aren't specifically liable under that law... leaving it to the individual to decide if they will comply with the law that covers them or not.
Though it is essential that we don't flout any law that we are covered by in terms of who we can accept.
Maybe a much lighter touch would be sufficient:

Membership is open to all individuals who shares its aims and who are not members of any organisation which the Board of Governors ("Board") has declared is incompatible with membership of the Party.

I struck through some of the text ... I am not sure we have a way to determine if someone 'shares our aims' so do we really need this? What would we do if someone didn't share our aims? (i.e. agreed on copyrights/patents but not privacy laws?) Would we kick them out? If they agitated completely against our aims and were a real detriment to the Party I am sure they would be removed irrespective of this phrase being in the constitution.

[borgs8472]

Scrap it.

[azrael]

Let's work on some wording for an amendment.

Code: Select all

Membership is open to citizens of the United Kingdom and resident foreign nationals who share its aims and who are not members of any organisation which the Board of Governors ("Board") has declared is incompatible with membership of the Party. In addition membership is open to non-resident foreign nationals at the Party's discretion.

This is just a first take on this. We could just have no limits at all and include 'non-resident foreign nationals' in the first sentence with the other criteria, or amend to simply say 'anyone who shares its aims'. But if there is a desire to have some extra examination of membership requests coming from non-resident foreign nationals (NRFN) the above may suffice. If so, is it sufficient to say at the Party's discretion, or should this be more specific. Should this be at the discretion of the Board? (Given the Board can remove standing if they have problems with any member, I would say the Board shouldn't be analysing NRFN requests as that seems very operational.) So should this be at the discretion of the treasury (who currently deal with memberships) or is that a purely financial involvement rather than looking into the prospective member on other levels? So should this be at discretion of a specific member of the NEC, or NEC broadly? I lean towards the latter if the looser phrasing above is deemed too loose..