Proposal to Amend the Statutes of the European Pirate Party (PPEU)
Current Text of Article 17, Paragraph 3:
"(3) All nominations shall be done at least a month prior to the meeting at which the election takes place."
Proposed Text of Article 17, Paragraph 3:
"(3) All nominations shall be submitted before the start of the Council meeting at which the election takes place."
Dear Council Members,
While the intention behind this proposal is clearly aimed at resolving our current difficulties with missing pre-nominations, changing the statutory text to allow regular candidacies right up until the start of the meeting is highly problematic and, frankly, completely unnecessary.
Undermining a Deliberate Democratic Consensus: The original one-month deadline was not a random administrative figure; it was a very deliberate, hard-won consensus established by all member parties when our Statutes were drafted. It was unanimously agreed upon to ensure that all national delegations have sufficient time to consult internally, debate the merits of applicants, and build a proper democratic mandate. This consensus is a cornerstone of our mutual respect and internal democracy.
Eroding Accountability and Quality: This one-month window forces potential candidates to reflect deeply on the serious responsibility of a Board position before stepping forward. It ensures high-quality, committed, and transparent leadership rather than rushed, impulsive appointments.
The Current Framework Already Resolves Vacancies: We must clarify a vital structural point: Our current legal framework already covers the scenario of unfilled seats. Even if no one applies within the one-month statutory deadline, the Council is not blocked. According to our established Rules of Procedure (Rule 3, Paragraph 4), the floor is automatically opened for spontaneous candidates during the meeting if there are fewer candidates than open seats.
No Statutory Change Needed: Because this emergency mechanism for vacancies is already safely regulated below the statutory level, we do not need to alter the Statutes at all. Amending Article 17(3) to fix a temporary lack of candidates is a dangerous over-correction that permanently destroys our core democratic notice periods for regular elections.
Legal Vulnerability under Luxembourgish Law: Luxembourgish association law (ASBL) places a heavy emphasis on the principle of transparency. Members must be informed in advance of key personnel decisions. Standardising last-minute “surprise” candidacies entirely without prior notice makes regular elections legally vulnerable to post-meeting challenges.
The current rule is wise, protective, and built on consensus. The vacancy problem is already solved by the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, to protect our internal democracy and legal certainty, this proposed amendment should be rejected entirely, and we should maintain the current, unamended text of Article 17(3).
I totally agree with @ThomasG here. According to the Statutes, the Council has already the power to re-open the process in case there are not enough candidates. This change is not needed.
You wrote it there. In case there are not enough candidates. 
IMHO closing the nominations month before the meeting is really unnecessary. Especially since we have only one-year term + usually there is a “mid-term” voting because there are free spots.
Dear Raman, Thomas, Marco and Members,
Please find the Board’s remarks below:
A change might be needed to resolve the incoherence between the meeting convening deadline and nomination deadline which are the same. We would recommend avoiding a short nomination deadline, to allow enough time for members to assess candidates and candidates to provide their motivation.
Thank you all for the input. After observing the different viewpoints, I still think a change is in place. In relation to the discussion I saw from the board and secretariat, I think altering my proposal for a shorter deadline (1 week beforehand) is indicated. As Matěj already claimed, I do believe that a one month deadline is arduous, and as most people actually go through the nominations and agenda shortly before the meeting, I do not accept the argument that only such a long deadline would allow everyone to familiarize themselves with the candidates.
Furthermore, I also cannot accept the argument of “we can always allow other nominations during the meeting if we do not fill all the spots up”. In my opinion, it’s not about finding whoever is willing, but starting to build quality candidates for the board. This process takes time and in relation to the announcement process and the time it takes for me to go through candidates in our internal party structure, and furthermore schedule meetings and interviews with them for these positions, I do believe that as much time as possible should be provided for this, to ensure that parties can nominate quality people.