政一B 邱科翰 (2-5)

姓名 : 邱科翰

班級 : 政一B

學號 : 07114248

[標題] Ministers 'divided' over process for testing Brexit options

[內文] The cabinet is divided over how to handle the process of asking MPs to vote on alternative Brexit plans.

The government has promised to give the Commons the chance to vote on different versions of Brexit if the prime minister's deal is rejected again.

But the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg said it had not been decided in government whether the votes should be binding or not and what role ministers would play.

MPs believe the process can help break the current parliamentary deadlock.

It has been reported MPs could potentially consider up to six options, including remaining in the customs union and single market, a no-deal exit or cancelling Brexit, to gauge support for alternative courses of action.

Cabinet minister Greg Clark said it would be the "right step" if the prime minister's deal failed again.

He told Nick Robinson’s Political Thinking podcast it was not good enough for any plan to "get over the line" and there needed to be as wide a consensus as possible behind the terms of withdrawal and the UK's future relations with the EU.

"Something that passes with a majority of one or two, I think, is not doing what we need to do which is to try to build as many people as possible together," he told Nick Robinson's Political Thinking Podcast.

In the coming days, as many as six other options, in addition to Mrs May's deal, could be voted on:

• Revoking Article 50 and cancelling Brexit
• Another referendum
• The PM's deal plus a customs union
• The PM's deal plus both a customs union and single market access
• A Canada-style free trade agreement
• Leaving the EU without a deal

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who wants his alternative plan for a customs union and guarantees on workers rights to be among those voted on, said there was support for a different way forward.

Conservative MP Sir Oliver Letwin, who is spearheading the move with senior Labour MPs including Hilary Benn, said he believed enough MPs would back an amendment to a government motion on Monday to trigger the so-called "indicative" votes later in the week.

But Conservative Brexiteer Marcus Fysh said the idea of giving MPs a menu of options after two years of negotiations was "ludicrous and childish", while ex-minister Steve Baker said it would end in "national humiliation".

The EU has given the UK until 12 April to decide on a way forward in an attempt to break the current impasse.

How would indicative votes work?

By the BBC's parliamentary correspondent Mark D'Arcy

If the Letwin amendment passes on Monday, it could allow a rough and ready version of the "indicative votes" process MPs have been discussing for some time now.

Alongside the PM's deal, as many as six other options could be voted on, including:

• revoking Article 50 and cancelling Brexit
• another referendum
• the PM's deal plus a customs union
• the PM's deal plus both a customs union and single market membership
• a Canada-style free trade agreement
• leaving the EU without a deal

It is possible other options which could command reasonable levels of support might be added to the mix.

At the end all would be voted on simultaneously. MPs would fill out a ballot paper on each, voting for or against, and the relative support could then be seen.

Crucially, all the ballot-filling would be done at the same time; it would not be a case of MPs voting on one option, hearing the result, and then voting on the next. So there would be no tactical voting between options.

On Thursday, EU leaders agreed to push back the date of Brexit from 29 March until 22 May if Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement at the third time of asking.

However, they said the UK would need to come up with a plan B within three weeks if MPs throw out Mrs May's deal yet again.

Sir Oliver and Mr Benn hope that Plan B could emerge from indicative votes - with MPs effectively asked to choose from a menu of different options, to see which one gets the most backing.

MPs will debate the next steps for Brexit on Monday, as the government scrambles to persuade enough of them to back the prime minister's deal to hold another vote on it later in the week.

'Way forward'

The indicative votes would not be binding on ministers.

But they would signal the degree of support among MPs for alternative options for the UK's future relationship with the EU.

After meeting ministers on Friday, Sir Oliver said he believed those searching for a cross-party compromise "have the numbers" to guarantee indicative votes will go ahead on Wednesday.

"We are seeking to crystallise a majority in some form of proposition so we have a way forward," he said.

MPs narrowly failed in an attempt to seize control of the Parliamentary agenda earlier this month to get indicative votes on to the Commons agenda.

…

[相關憲法條文]

憲法第五十三條 : 行政院為國家最高行政機關。

憲法第六十二條 : 立法院為國家最高立法機關，由人民選舉之立法委員組織之，代表人民行使立法權。

憲法第六十三條 : 立法院有議決法律案、預算案、戒嚴案、大赦案、宣戰案、媾和案、條約案及國家其他重要事項之權。

憲法第六十七條 : 立法院得設各種委員會。

各種委員會得邀請政府人員及社會上有關係人員到會備詢。

憲法第七十一條 : 立法院開會時，關係院院長及各部會首長得列席陳述意見。

憲法增修條文第三條 (節選) : 行政院依左列規定，對立法院負責，憲法第五十七條之規定，停止適用：

一、行政院有向立法院提出施政方針及施政報告之責。立法委員在開會時，有向行政院院長及行政院各部會首長質詢之權。

二、行政院對於立法院決議之法律案、預算案、條約案，如認為有窒礙難行時，得經總統之核可，於該決議案送達行政院十日內，移請立法院覆議。立法院對於行政院移請覆議案，應於送達十五日內作成決議。

如為休會期間，立法院應於七日內自行集會，並於開議十五日內作成決議。覆議案逾期未議決者，原決議失效。覆議時，如經全體立法委員二分之一以上決議維持原案，行政院院長應即接受該決議。

三、立法院得經全體立法委員三分之一以上連署，對行政院院長提出不信任案。不信任案提出七十二小時後，應於四十八小時內以記名投票表決之。如經全體立法委員二分之一以上贊成，行政院院長應於十日內提出辭職，並得同時呈請總統解散立法院；不信任案如未獲通過，一年內不得對同一行政院院長再提不信任案。

[相關法條]

立法院職權行使法第七條 : 立法院依憲法第六十三條規定所議決之議案，除法律案、預算案應經三讀會議決外，其餘均經二讀會議決之。

立法院職權行使法第十七條 : 行政院遇有重要事項發生，或施政方針變更時，行政院院長或有關部會首長應向立法院院會提出報告，並備質詢。

前項情事發生時，如有立法委員提議，十五人以上連署或附議，經院會議決，亦得邀請行政院院長或有關部會首長向立法院院會報告，並備質詢。

立法院職權行使法第十八條 : 立法委員對於行政院院長及各部會首長之施政方針、施政報告及其他事項，得提出口頭或書面質詢。

前項口頭質詢分為政黨質詢及立法委員個人質詢，均以即問即答方式為之，並得採用聯合質詢。但其人數不得超過三人。 政黨質詢先於個人質詢進行。

立法院職權行使法第二十二條 : 依第十七條及第十八條提出之口頭質詢，應由行政院院長或質詢委員指定之有關部會首長答復；未及答復部分，應於二十日內以書面答復。但質詢事項牽涉過廣者，得延長五日。

立法院議事規則第十條 : 經否決之議案，除復議外，不得再行提出。

…

心得評論：I would, this week, dive into the legislative. While the UK is stuck in the EU (so far), what might Taiwan act in a similar situation ? 

In Great Britain, Parliament reigns supreme in the political system, which means a deal like Brexit would go no where without Parliament support. Laws in Taiwan granted the Legislative the power to ratify treaties, which could then be proclaimed by the President. But the power to negotiate treaties and set terms belongs to the Executive. Say, if the state wishes to sign a treaty with the PRC, it would be negotiators from the Executive who strikes a deal, which would then be sent to the Legislative. The Legislative would vote on the “version” of this treaty, and if accepted, would then be ratified. If the deal wasn’t passed, as in Brexit, the same version could not be presented to the Legislative, as written in law. So unlike the House of Commons, which voted on pretty much the same deal twice now, the Legislative in Taiwan would likely reject the deal once and for all, unless otherwise stated. Of course, during this period, the Premier and Ministers concerned must answer to the Legislative, providing answers to their doubts. The Premier must also notify the Legislative for any significant changes. In this case, Taiwan is similar to the UK. 

Of course, there are calls for multiple options to be presented in the House of Commons for voting, so that MPs wouldn’t be tied to the Prime Minister’s exit agreement. The same thing probably wouldn’t happen in Taiwan. While there isn’t a strict law that states so, only one option is considered on any given moment in most scenarios. If a treaty wasn’t passed, it’s up to the Executive to figure it out, since the Legislative (in practical applications) cannot interfere in foreign affairs like deal-making. Thus, the possibility of a legislation takeover, as some in the House of Commons propose, seems unlikely in Taiwan as well.