|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 [zt]澳大利亚的对付政府关门的经验 |
 |
Youlicaca
性别: 
加入时间: 2012/11/28
文章: 470
经验值: 14646
|
|
|
作者：Youlicaca 在 驴鸣镇 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
政府敢关门？看英国女王把你们全“炒”了！(图)
http://www.wenxuecity.com/news/2013/10/04/2703457.html
文章来源: 华盛顿邮报 于 2013-10-04 01:14:50 - 新闻取自各大新闻媒体，新闻内容并不代表本网立场！
打印本新闻(被阅读 13985 次)
美国当地时间10月1日0:01（北京时间10月1日12:01），由于美国参众两院未能就财政预算案达成一致，美国政府关门。无独有偶，澳大利亚政府也遭遇过与美国政府相同的困境。10月1日，美国《华盛顿邮报》刊登了马克思·费舍尔的博文。该博文讲述了澳大利亚政府应对停摆危机时的处理手法：当时澳大利亚政府因为预算法案未通过，遭遇停摆危机，结果这次危机的解决方式是英国女王把上下两院的议员全部“炒了鱿鱼”……
以下是观察者网翻译的博文节选。
澳大利亚政府曾在1975年“关门”。此次政府关门是因为澳大利亚的立法机构在一项预算法案争执不休，因而僵持不下，与如今美国联邦政府的“停摆”十分类似，也与美国前17次政府关门有“异曲同工”之处。
澳大利亚政府1975年“关门”之举是以何种方式结束的呢？当时，英国女王伊丽莎白二世在澳大利亚的官方代表、大不列颠驻澳大利亚总督科尔爵士解除了澳大利亚首相的职务。科尔爵士任命了澳大利亚新首相，此人随即通过政府预算支出法案，以便继续让政府进行日常运作。三小时之后，科尔爵士把整个上下议院的议员们全“炒”了。随后，澳大利亚重新进行议员选举。自此之后，澳大利亚政府再也没有发生过“关门”的事儿。
1975年，澳大利亚政府由数个政党组成。下议院通过了一项预算法案以便让政府继续运作，但该项法案被上议院否决。掌控上议院的反对党认为现任政府在无关紧要的项目上花费太多。反对党表示，除非政府同意他们的提议，否则他们就不会通过预算案。反对党要求提前进行选举，因为他们相信能将执政党拉下马。
澳大利亚首相爱德华·高夫·惠特拉姆拒绝了这一提议。双方都不肯妥协，政府预算支出法案流产。随后，在11月11日，澳大利亚首相宣布他只同意由反对派掌握的上议院进行提前选举。此时，英国女王的代表、澳大利亚名义上的执政者、大不列颠驻澳大利亚总督科尔爵士把澳大利亚首相叫进了自己的办公室，然后在当日下午1点15分解除了首相的职务。
15分钟后，科尔爵士任命反对党党魁马尔科姆·弗雷泽担任澳大利亚新首相。下午两点，弗雷泽连同盟友通过了此前自己极力反对的政府预算支出法案。但随后一切都陷入了混乱。下议院一片哗然。当执政党工党的成员得知惠特拉姆被解职以及弗雷泽被任命为首相的消息后，他们立即发起了对弗雷泽的不信任案。
下午4点50分，科尔爵士宣布解散上下议院。他把所有人都“炒鱿鱼”了。在那份公告书的最后，明确地写道：“天佑女王”（God save the Queen）。
一个月之后，澳大利亚进行全国大选。由弗雷泽领衔的反对党在上下议院均取得了胜利。自此以后，澳大利亚政府再也没有“关门歇业”过。
澳大利亚虽然是一个独立国家，但仍是英联邦的一员，这就意味着澳大利亚在名义上仍然认同英国女王的统治。英国统治者仍拥有超过澳大利亚政府的权力，但基本不曾使用它。1975年的这次危机只是意外。
从法理上而言，1975年澳大利亚政府预算危机的结束是因为女王伊丽莎白二世“炒”掉了澳大利亚政府的每一个人。从实际的政治运作角度而言，以往只有政府首脑这么干。
美国由于脱离英国的殖民统治以达两百多年，所以并不会认同英国女王的权威，因而此次美国联邦政府关门之后发生的故事就不会同澳大利亚一样了。
英文报道：
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/01/australia-had-a-government-shutdown-once-it-ended-with-the-queen-firing-everyone-in-parliament/
Australia had a government shutdown once. In the end, the queen fired everyone in Parliament.
By Max Fisher, Published: October 1 at 12:04 pm
The United States' self-imposed federal government shutdown has a way of making people around the world shake their heads in bewilderment. As Georgetown professor Erik Voeten wrote for The Washington Post's new Monkey Cage political science blog, "I cannot think of a single foreign analogy to what is happening in the U.S. today."
But there actually is one foreign precedent: Australia did this once. In 1975, the Australian government shut down because the legislature had failed to fund it, deadlocked by a budgetary squabble. It looked a lot like the U.S. shutdown of today, or the 17 previous U.S. shutdowns.
Australia's 1975 shutdown ended pretty differently, though, than they do here in America. Queen Elizabeth II's official representative in Australia, Governor General Sir John Kerr, simply dismissed the prime minister. He appointed a replacement, who immediately passed the spending bill to fund the government. Three hours later, Kerr dismissed the rest of Parliament. Then Australia held elections to restart from scratch. And they haven't had another shutdown since.
Here's how it happened. Australia, like the United States, has both a Senate and a House of Representatives. In 1975, the chambers were controlled by different parties. The House had passed an appropriations bill to fund the government, but the Senate refused to pass it because it believed that the government was spending too much money on unworthy programs during an economic downturn. The opposition party that controlled the Senate said it would not pass the spending bill unless the government met its somewhat outlandish demand. Does this all sound familiar so far? In the Australian case, though, the opposition's demand wasn't repeal of a health-care law -- they wanted early elections, which they believed would unseat the ruling party.
Prime Minister Gough Whitlam rejected the opposition's demands but couldn't bring the parties to a compromise, and the federal budget went unfunded. Then, on the morning of Nov. 11, Whitlam announced he would hold early elections not for the House but for half of the opposition-controlled Senate (typically, only one half of the Senate goes up for reelection at a time). Kerr, as the the official representative of the queen, who is technically still sovereign over Australia, summoned Whitlam to his office and fired him at 1:15 p.m.
Fifteen minutes later, Kerr appointed the leader of the opposition Liberal Party, Malcolm Fraser, as Whitlam's replacement. By 2 p.m., before most even realized what had happened, Fraser got his allies in the previously deadlocked Senate to push through the government spending bill. Then everything kind of fell into chaos. When the ruling Labor Party, in the House, learned about Whitlam's firing and Fraser's appointment, its members revolted with a no-confidence vote against Fraser. At 4:50 p.m., Kerr dissolved the rest of Parliament, essentially firing everyone, with a formal proclamation that ended with the words "God Save the Queen."
A month later, Australia held national elections to replace the now-dissolved government. The opposition, led by Fraser, swept to victory in both houses. Australia has not had another shutdown since.
This sort of thing, of course, could never happen in the United States. The fact that Australia could pull it off is a quirk of its history as a former British colony that, unlike the United States, never fully broke away.
Australia's governor general does not typically fire prime ministers, or do much of anything. It's a largely ceremonial position and a legacy, as the colonial title suggests, of a time when Australia was a far-flung possession of the British Empire. It's now an independent country but still a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, which means it recognizes the British monarchy as technically in charge. That monarch still has formal power over Australia's government but almost never actually uses it. The 1975 crisis was the exception.
The governor general technically acts solely on behalf of the monarch -- the office was established before telephones existed, after all. This means that, legally speaking, the 1975 Australian government funding crisis ended because Queen Elizabeth II dismissed everyone in the government. In practice, the governor general did in the actual firing.
You might find yourself wishing that the United States could follow Australia's example: Fire everyone in Congress, hold snap elections next month and restart from scratch. But we can't, because we haven't recognized the British monarchy or had a London-appointed governor -general in more than two centuries. Maybe, if we ask nicely, Britain will take us back?
作者：Youlicaca 在 驴鸣镇 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您可以在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
