姓名 : 邱科翰
班級 : 政一B
學號 : 07114248
[標題] Was this the weirdest week in Westminster?
[內文] Here in Westminster, things haven't been "business as usual" for quite some time.
But this week outdid itself, with every day delivering an odd surprise - and the funny reactions to match.
These are just some of the weird and wonderful things to have taken place in SW1A over the past five days.
Monday: Bumday
We all know what it is like - that slow start to the week, the afternoon lull...
Then boom! Twelve naked people crash into your office and demand action on climate change.
No? Maybe it is just MPs then...
On Monday, activists took over the public gallery in the Commons during a debate on indicative Brexit votes, with slogans painted across their bodies.
MPs courageously carried on, with the odd reference ad-libbed into their speeches and a hair-raising facial expression or two, as some of the protesters managed to glue themselves to the security glass.
It took the police a fair while to unstick the group and carry them off the premises, but the imprints of their backsides remained for some time - both on the glass and in our memories.
Tuesday: Crack out the Chilean wine
Every week, Theresa May summons her cabinet to No 10 for a chat (row) about the latest direction of the government.
These occasions tend to last for about two hours before the top brass can head back to their departments and maybe get on with some non-Brexit related work - Steve Barclay is exempt from this, of course.
But on Tuesday, after ministers arrived at Downing Street, the doors were locked and they were stuck in talks for more than seven hours.
Think what you could do with seven hours:
- Watch nearly five football matches
- Smash through the whole series of Bodyguard
- Get a healthy amount of sleep
But no, these ladies and gentlemen had to come up with an answer to the Brexit deadlock.
To stop them telling gossip-hungry journalists what had been decided before she did, Mrs May is said to have shut them up in the cabinet room, confiscated their phones and fed them "cheap Chilean red wine".
Wednesday: Message from the gods?
As Mrs May and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn entered into their talks on Wednesday afternoon, it seemed the weather gods were siding with the angry Brexiteers.
A previously fine day was shaken by a huge clap of thunder and hailstones crashing on to the pavements, despite spring being well and truly sprung.
But the dramatic scenes in the Commons were still to come.
For the first time in 39 years, a vote by MPs was tied.
It was on an amendment calling for backbenchers to take over business in the House for a fourth day, and the lead-up to the 310-310 result produced a lot of angry exchanges.
So how was the impasse solved?
Mr Order himself, Speaker John Bercow, got to have the casting vote and he went against the amendment.
Cue lots of oohs and aahs from a Commons beside itself with procedure.
And the day was rounded off by an odd point of order from Tory backbencher Mark Francois after MPs approved a bill - in just one day - forcing the PM to ask the EU for an extension to Brexit.
The staunch Leaver chose the run-up to Holy Week to exclaim: "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.
The Lord does work in mysterious ways...
Thursday: Here comes the flood
The biblical theme continued into Thursday.
As MPs debated the introduction of a loan charge, water began to pour into the press gallery above, with journalists sprinting out to avoid damp shoes.
While the hacks were tweeting puns about "leaks in Westminster", politicians tried to continue and be heard over the sound of running water.
But despite it being a somewhat busy week in Parliament, Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle was forced to suspend the House, eventually adjourning - meaning they all got an early bath.
Meanwhile, the Lords were embarking on an epic debate that saw so many votes, peers were up and down from the benches as if they had repeatedly sat on a hedgehog.
It was a battle of Brexit, as one side tried to get Thursday's one-day bill through its peer review and the other tried to stop it.
The players were "dusting off camp beds" and checking times for breakfast (07:30 BST if you were wondering), promising to debate through the night.
But after almost 12 hours, they called it a day and went for a nightcap.
Friday: You think it's all over...
So far, so normal.
But there are still a few hours to go.
Maybe it will be locusts next...
…
[相關憲法條文]
憲法第三十七條 : 總統依法公布法律，發布命令，須經行政院院長之副署，或行政院院長及
有關部會首長之副署。
憲法第三十八條 : 總統依本憲法之規定，行使締結條約及宣戰、媾和之權。
憲法第五十八條 : 行政院設行政院會議，由行政院院長、副院長、各部會首長及不管部會之
政務委員組織之，以院長為主席。
行政院院長、各部會首長，須將應行提出於立法院之法律案、預算案、戒嚴案、大赦案、宣戰案、媾和案、條約案及其他重要事項，或涉及各部會共同關係之事項，提出於行政院會議議決之。
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。
憲法第七十二條 : 立法院法律案通過後，移送總統及行政院，總統應於收到後十日內公布之
，但總統得依照本憲法第五十七條之規定辦理 。
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八條 : 第一讀會，由主席將議案宣付朗讀行之。
政府機關提出之議案或立法委員提出之法律案，應先送程序委員會，提報院會朗讀標題後，即應交付有關委員會審查。但有出席委員提議，二十人以上連署或附議，經表決通過，得逕付二讀。
立法委員提出之其他議案，於朗讀標題後，得由提案人說明其旨趣，經大體討論，議決交付審查或逕付二讀，或不予審議。
立法院職權行使法第九條 : 第二讀會，於討論各委員會審查之議案，或經院會議決不經審查逕付二讀之議案時行之。
第二讀會，應將議案朗讀，依次或逐條提付討論。
第二讀會，得就審查意見或原案要旨，先作廣泛討論。廣泛討論後，如有出席委員提議，十五人以上連署或附議，經表決通過，得重付審查或撤銷之。
立法院職權行使法第十條 : 法律案在第二讀會逐條討論，有一部分已經通過，其餘仍在進行中時，如對本案立法之原旨有異議，由出席委員提議，二十五人以上連署或附議，
經表決通過，得將全案重付審查。但以一次為限。
立法院職權行使法第 10-1 條 : 第二讀會討論各委員會議決不須黨團協商之議案，得經院會同意，不須討論，逕依審查意見處理。
立法院職權行使法第十一條 : 第三讀會，應於第二讀會之下次會議行之。但如有出席委員提議，十五人以上連署或附議，經表決通過，得於二讀後繼續進行三讀。
第三讀會，除發現議案內容有互相牴觸，或與憲法、其他法律相牴觸者外，祇得為文字之修正。
第三讀會，應將議案全案付表決。
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：
Come on, I HAVE to write about this. It does not get more stupid than this. For the first time in generations, a vote was tied, later rejected by the Speaker himself. The interesting part is that despite this being such a critical moment, 29 MPs didn’t cast their votes. 29. But then, this is nothing compared to what happened later that day. The Commons passed a bill within a day. Now, I’ve been watching British media and keeping an eye on Westminster for nine years now. This outdid them all.
A bill, if it were to pass the first reading, the second reading, the Committee stage, and the third reading, usually requires several months. The Commons managed to do all that in one day. 1.
Laws in Taiwan must go through a similar process, only that we don’t have a second House. While it’s technically legal to pass a bill in one day, I would consider that against constitutional norms, no matter the country of occurrence. Look at what happened the last time our legislative rushed through a bill. The March 2014 incident was a direct result of inappropriate legislative proceedings on both sides. And that’s “just” rushing through the committee stage. The Commons was on a whole new level. One might expect a topic of utmost urgency that necessitates a bill to be passed in one day. Nope. It’s something the Prime Minister has repeatedly promised.
The bill would now go to the Lords. To be very honest on this, I wish the Lords reject it. I recognise the political systems and parliament traditions, yes. I recognise the Commons’ superiority over all, yes. I recognise current world affairs and still, I don’t find the need for a bill to be concluded in a single day. This must go through proper procedures, or it would mark an attack on the proud constitutional norms that Britain herself established. The Lords must come to their senses and realise that this is not a declaration of war, neither is it something of equal gravity. This must be returned to the Commons and be properly decided.
Well, about that leak… It seemed like the physical symbol of British democracy was falling apart as well. Should one be surprised ?
沒有留言:
張貼留言