Edward McMillan-Scott MEP: Which electoral system should we use in Britain to elect MEPs?

Edward McMillan-Scott has been a Conservative MEP since 1984 and is seeking re-election in the Yorkshire and The Humber region next month.

Given the dislike of the closed list system of electing our MEPs, as well as concerns expressed about the selection process, I hosted a fringe event at the Spring Forum in Cheltenham attended by 70 people on the theme: “Would a Conservative Government keep PR for the European Elections?”

The event was chaired by Peter Facey, director of Unlock Democracy, and also on the panel was former Conservative councillor Havard Hughes, campaigns director for the Electoral Reform Society, who gave a view on the electoral systems used in Europe and made the case for the single transferable voting system to be used in the UK.

The debate centred around how we find a better system than the current closed list system of PR for electing and the postal ballot for selecting our MEPs.  As the founder of the EU’s £150m Democracy Initiative, which supports the development of democracy worldwide, I believe an incoming Conservative government can consider in particular how to untangle Labour’s 1997 gerrymandering of the system.

Dan Hannan told the Spring Forum that 85% of our laws are made in Brussels, so it matters who represents Britain there – and how they are chosen by their parties. Of course, the media will focus on the chance that the BNP will take a Euro-seat in the North West – a slap in the face for Jack Straw, who devised the system – but there are wider and deeper issues that we must face.

Edward McMillan-Scott MEP: China is a terror state

Edward McMillan-Scott is a Conservative MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber and Vice-President of the European Parliament.

As the Beijing Olympics get under way I am appealing to ConservativeHome readers to take time to think about the atrocities that are happening in China behind the façade of the Games and to join me in asking Gordon Brown to raise the issue of the forgotten, imprisoned and tortured opponents of the ruling Communist Party.

A few months ago I said on Newsnight that China is a ‘terror state’ to explain my campaign for a political boycott of the Olympics.  I wish the sportsmen well but I want politicians and senior figures to protest at China’s appalling – and worsening – human rights record, in Tibet, in Darfur and in China itself. 

By coincidence I had dinner with Prince Charles that night at the British Embassy in Brussels, where he confirmed his decision not to attend.  When Steven Spielberg pulled out of designing the opening ceremony my campaign took off.  The architect of the ‘bird’s nest’ stadium, Ai Weiwei, had already said he would stay away because of China’s ‘appalling’ political conditions.

President Sarkozy weighed in by declaring, after the Olympic flame propaganda shambles, that he had not made up his mind.  Chancellor Merkel has refused to attend, as has the Canadian PM Stephen Harper.
 
I initiated a debate in the European Parliament just before we broke for the summer recess on the eve of President Sarkozy’s speech to MEPs on his priorities for France's six-month EU presidency.   I said ‘keep politics out of sport – keep Sarkozy out of Beijing’.

A Government worth having: Foreign policy

As part of our Government worth having series we asked a few friends of ConservativeHome to offer 100 word thoughts on how the Conservatives might make some ground on foreign policy.

Alan Mendoza, Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society: With Labour heading down the route of international irrelevance, Conservatives should have the courage to explore where to stand on:

1. ‘Hard’ and ‘soft’ power – As Joseph Nye, author of Soft Power, acknowledges, both variants should be used in tandem. We must therefore be prepared to move beyond diplomacy if it fails to deliver results, and to equip our armed services for such endeavours.
2. Idealism versus realism – William Hague has stressed ideas such as human rights and democracy, but it unclear whether these or other goals outlined, such as improving relations with autocratic allies in the Middle East, will dominate.
3. Traditional multilateralism or coalitions of the willing – The UN has repeatedly failed to resolve major international crises. A Conservative government should therefore be in the vanguard of coalitions circumventing the vetoes of non-democracies shielding dictators and rogue regimes.

Gary Streeter MP, former Chairman of the Party's International Office: Whilst remaining a steadying whisper in the ear of Uncle Sam, we should carve out our unique British brand of soft power with a hard edge.  We should make the promotion of good governance and democracy building the centre ground of our policy. Diplomacy, aid and know-how, backed up by the excellence of our armed forces, should be our instruments.

We should shift at least £100 million from the aid budget to pour into robust democracy building programmes, especially in the Commonwealth. British aid should be more closely linked to foreign policy and should be withdrawn where a recipient country government falls short. We should be champions for the reform of multi-lateral organisations including the EU and UN.

Edward McMillan-Scott MEP: Why we should boycott Beijing

Earlier this week ConservativeHome highlighted Edward McMillan-Scott's concerns about UK participation in the Beijing Olympics.  In this article the Tory MEP for Yorkshire & Humber, Vice-President of the European Parliament and founder of the EU’s Democracy and Human Rights Initiative lists his concerns about China and why it might be necessary to shun the 'Genocide Olympics'.

The year-long countdown to the 2008 Beijing Olympics was celebrated by the Chinese regime with a firework display in Tiananmen Square – the focus of the June 1989 massacre of thousands of human rights activists.  Massed dancers performed under the bland portrait of Mao Tse-tung, who murdered without qualms more than 70 million of his own people, 38 million through starvation.

Outside China, numerous reports were produced by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International.  Reporters without Borders said “despite the explicit undertakings it gave to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 2001, the Chinese government has done nothing to improve free expression or human rights in general.... Every year several thousand Chinese are executed in public, often in stadiums, by means of a bullet in the back of the neck or lethal injection.”

Simon Clegg, chief executive of the British Olympic Association, said he would not succumb to pressure from human rights groups or politicians over participation in what promises to be the most controversial games since the US boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

However, this view that sport and politics don’t mix defies the Olympic Charter itself. Article 1 says it “seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles”, surely the most universal of which is the UN Human Rights Charter?