政一B 邱科翰 (2-13)

姓名 : 邱科翰

班級 : 政一B

學號 : 07114248

[標題] Laura Kuenssberg: May was just overwhelmed by the job, BBC Politics, UK

[內文] She was just overwhelmed. Overwhelmed by the divisions in her own party, that she simply did not have the political ability to patch up.

At the start she boasted about not being a creature of Westminster's bars and cliques. But it meant this very private politician had few true friends to help when things turned sour, and neither the powers of patronage, nor the capability to schmooze or arm twist to get people around to her point of view.

Few of her cabinet colleagues, even now, know her well at all, one saying that "as things got harder the circle got smaller". Another revealed that "there was no trust, and no faith".

Settling the Tories' decades-long dispute over Europe was always perhaps beyond just one leader. But the wounds have got more painful under her leadership, rather than fading away.

Mrs May was overwhelmed too by the contradictions of the Brexit policy she set. A reluctant Remainer at the start, she wanted to prove to her party that she really wanted us out.

So she set red lines that strangled the possibility of a straightforward deal. This led to an uneasy compromise that would struggle to thrill anyone, after the country had made a binary choice in the referendum. And, as for her plan, she herself, let alone the cabinet, never had much appetite to sell it.

As Mrs May stood in Downing Street to announce she was going, she urged compromise. But her political opponents are already remarking that it was a plea she only heeded far, far too late.

This has been a broken administration for a long time. The idea that in a matter of weeks a genuine compromise could be reached with the other parties - after nearly three years of trying to stick to a Tory strategy - was always far-fetched.

It's also worth noting how quickly her cabinet colleagues turned when her compromises would have meant having to vote for legislation that might have enabled another referendum - votes that would have been a drag on their chances in the leadership race.

Mrs May was also, of course, overwhelmed by Parliament. I'll always remember the morning after the general election in 2017, when a senior Tory said: "From now, me and only six mates will be able to stop anything happening."

How prescient that proved to be. The Commons has indeed become a place where small groups pursuing the purity of their policy have overpowered attempts at pragmatism.

Mrs May's departure marks the end of an episode of collective Westminster failure too. There is nothing right now that suggests the next leader will turn that into success.

No one could ever accuse the departing prime minister of not caring enough.

Contrast her agony at the end of her lectern statement with David Cameron's shockingly casual whistle as he went back into Number 10.

Even in this moment of huge drama Mrs May wanted to make a point about changes she has been able to make: action on domestic violence, trying to tackle racial discrimination, attempts to deal with lack of housing.

But she must know that the chapter in our history bearing her name will be about Brexit, and her failure to achieve it.

There was always perhaps a mismatch between the scale of the challenges and her political ability: overwhelming in the end for Theresa May, with the public and her party underwhelmed by her.

…

[相關憲法條文]

憲法第 17 條 : 人民有選舉、罷免、創制及複決之權。

憲法增修條文第 2 條 (節選) : 總統於立法院通過對行政院院長之不信任案後十日內，經諮詢立法院院長後，得宣告解散立法院。但總統於戒嚴或緊急命令生效期間，不得解散立法院。立法院解散後，應於六十日內舉行立法委員選舉，並於選舉結果確認後十日內自行集會，其任期重新起算。

憲法增修條文第 3 條 (節選) : 行政院院長由總統任命之。行政院院長辭職或出缺時，在總統未任命行政院院長前，由行政院副院長暫行代理。憲法第五十五條之規定，停止適用。

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。

憲法增修條文第 4 條 (節選) : 立法院立法委員自第七屆起一百一十三人，任期四年，連選得連任，於每屆任滿前三個月內，依左列規定選出之，不受憲法第六十四條及第六十五條之限制：

一、自由地區直轄市、縣市七十三人。每縣市至少一人。

二、自由地區平地原住民及山地原住民各三人。

三、全國不分區及僑居國外國民共三十四人。

[相關法條]

公民投票法第 1 條 : 依據憲法主權在民之原則，為確保國民直接民權之行使，特制定本法。本

法未規定者，適用其他法律之規定。

公民投票涉及原住民族權利者，不得違反原住民族基本法之規定。

公民投票法第 2 條 : 本法所稱公民投票，包括全國性及地方性公民投票。

全國性公民投票，依憲法規定外，其他適用事項如下：

一、法律之複決。

二、立法原則之創制。

三、重大政策之創制或複決。

地方性公民投票適用事項如下：

一、地方自治條例之複決。

二、地方自治條例立法原則之創制。

三、地方自治事項重大政策之創制或複決。

預算、租稅、薪俸及人事事項不得作為公民投票之提案。

…

心得評論：

So the day has come, and what started out as a “strong and stable” Tory premiership has come to an end. May was widely believed to be a firm and determined public servant, who focuses on the task and delivers the results. She took hits that most male politicians cannot endure, she brushed off criticisms and doubts that would otherwise result in total disaster, and until days ago, somehow managed to keep together her Cabinet.

Perhaps it’s her personality, she never had much allies when she needed them. Her party, despite winning their largest victory since Thatcher’s leadership, never recovered from the snap election, and so did May. Backstabbed by both the front and backbenchers, she struggled to keep the Conservative and Unionist Party united. Her premiership saw the highest rate of ministerial resignation and the most defeat for a government under the reigning monarch. 

It wasn’t her fault then, I suppose, as NO Tory minister could’ve carried this job back in 2016. She took on an office with enormous pressure and impossible tasks at hand. She forced her way through obstacles, through the fiercest opposition ever seen under the reigning monarch. She managed to strike a deal with the EU nonetheless, and had tried three times to persuade the Commons to approve it. Her accomplishment in office was, depending on one’s political stance, somewhere between “just about managing” to “arguably remarkable”, given her minority government and the limits placed on her political manoeuvring. Yet it all comes down to Brexit. Like her predecessor, the first female prime minister, she was also forced out of office over European affairs. Even though her time in the Commons were mostly spent on discussing “normal” issues, her entire premiership seems to be tied to the single topic of pulling the UK out of the EU. This is not fair. This isn’t the right way to verdict a politician’s historical legacy. She delivered little, yes, but she also had little to work with from the very beginning. She faced the most hostile opposition in recent decades, and had so ministers and backbenchers defying party orders, they didn’t even make the news anymore. She had her ideals, yet she went against her own beliefs and compromised again and again, hoping to form a consensus and gather support. Some criticised her as stubborn, they were wrong. She showed that she is capable of changing, of adapting, to meet current needs. She recognises reality, even if that means humiliation, or as some may consider, a display of weakness. No prime minister has been humiliated like this in the past two or three decades. Yet she carried on for nearly three years (the fifth shortest time in office since 1900). That is diligence. She may not be Thatcher, the Iron Lady, but she is still a steely woman. Friday marks the first time she has shown emotion in public. I’d say be easy on her. She did as she said, she tried her best.