; L0 Y- [6 y9 S8 etvb now,tvbnow,bttvb5.39.217.76; _; _) \! |* V1 u
註1：原文為「On constitutional arrangements, we did not succeed in persuading the Chinese that the Chief Executive of Hong Kong should be elected immediately in 1997 (although the agreement does leave open the possibility that he might be so elected). But throughout the negotiations we have had the closest consultations with the Executive Council. We have brought them to accept at each point that we had achieved the maximum that was possible from the Chinese.」 ; l3 }- z& _% I/ ?9 Y) h5.39.217.765.39.217.76) C. g6 ^- |9 o$ Y5 b
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb x- {$ z6 M1 B5 M& Y+ F
註2：「We believe that what we have today is a reasonable agreement, the best that can be achieved, and one which we can commend to the people of Hong Kong in good conscience.」 9 l) B$ |9 a0 q5 _) D6 s5.39.217.76 ! a# Z+ q# x. v2 F/ L; T9 s7 i3 jTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。2 T/ G* P' V: J
註3：「The Chinese are known to be opposed to direct elections and generally wary of the development of representative institutions. But they have agreed that the Agreement should provide for an elected legislature after 1997. It will be impracticable to introduce direct elections without at least the tacit acquiescence of the Chinese.」公仔箱論壇8 ^* J* O' C) I) l" R3 L# d
5.39.217.76: L) |& [$ s. |# d5 j
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。1 l. Y2 F4 X# s+ r. `' j$ T
註4：「Wu noted from your message that we were prepared to accept the Chinese position that the Chief Executive of the SAR should be selected by election or consultation. After careful consideration, the Chinese side were prepared in return to agree to the two requests in your message, i.e.: (a) that the text of Annex 1 should state that the legislature should be selected by an elective process (semicolon) and(b) that the executive authority should be accountable to the legislature.」公仔箱論壇- x7 s+ O5 W8 f
& C: l% W: @, E
5.39.217.761 n! J4 T" E" s0 v# z3 a1 ^: k c
註5：「This is another big step forward. They have accepted our points on the constitutional arrangements;」（「big step forward」和「our points on the constitutional arrangements」都有畫線。）TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。( l8 ^& n2 w" G; k
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb7 t! j8 [" X. G+ k" j7 `* C( u8 g
5.39.217.76' p( u9 P; \/ C' s
註6：「Zhou said that the Chinese position was firm. The structure of the future SAR government would be stipulated in the Basic Law. The Chinese proposed that the agreement should state that the chief executive should be chosen by election or consultation.This was reasonable, because it would in practice be difficutl（原文串法）to per-determined the method by which he should be chosen.」 ' j* o* W' b6 Y- v* P( D: t 0 i* _7 v4 e' f# p9 h) o5.39.217.76# q ^2 G& u! |2 Y6 x) t
註7：「Next is the question of constitutional arrangements. The Chinese are refusing to commit themselves on the structure of government after 1997 beyond saying that the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR should be chosen “by election or consultation". They have refused to specify that the legislature will be elected or the executive authority should be answerable to the legislature. We see an elected legislature as fundamental to the autonomy of the future Hong Kong SAR and must press for it strongly. Here I proposed saying that we should be prepared to accept the Chinese line that the Chief Executive could be chosen by election or consultation in return for a statement that the legislature should be elected and that the executive should be answerable to it.」 " C* n! l7 p( o" `1 p5 Ktvb now,tvbnow,bttvb5.39.217.76. j* U. I/ g9 u2 q# D8 \0 b0 _0 S
公仔箱論壇1 ?: s. ^ D+ w0 F, u
L& t6 M, S' z; H
公仔箱論壇. c% j/ G7 m4 q" M' ]" w! B1 H 作者: felicity2010 時間: 2014-1-14 11:55 AM
蕭少滔: 《基本法》就是講明係機構提名tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb. d/ \. d3 e+ k! ]
2 ^" _4 `0 L. u
! b" ]4 P. [' ~公仔箱論壇 / p n) h; `, d' K公仔箱論壇公仔箱論壇. h+ G0 \4 r' t& N" [
也又真是政治這回事，半日已嫌太長。今日忙着其他，只跟進了真普聯的三軌方案，未有時間跟進政府的咨詢大會。而居然就在咨詢大會爆出了這個超級大頭佛出來：到底《基本法》寫特首選舉，是否「機構提名」？TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 n% J1 s# G/ }3 J& B1 o& o
$ b4 e1 s' b& L4 z+ l
皆因譚志源居然直話直說：條文並無寫明是「機構提名」。這個話題不算新也不算舊，但居然是由推銷政改的政府官員自己出來講是「並非基本法原文」，這個才又真要命。因為之前李飛親自來香港，也刻意講清講楚，附件一的提名委員會提名，是「機構提名」。而一直指責這個講法是「僭建」的泛民，今次可以樂翻天了，因為「對號入座」的後果，就是「譚志源明摑李飛一巴掌」。公仔箱論壇- [ O) Y6 f7 D1 Z9 ?# m! T% K
( y: A' b! v* D: U9 g我本人也希望有直選的一天，也不喜歡《基本法》在過度期間用「提名委員會」加多一層限制。但這並不表示《基本法》所要求的程序就可以省過不理，否則這份憲制性文件就沒有任何規範的能力，而否定了基本法，又何以確保中國不是可以連基本法所承諾的一國兩制也廢掉？公仔箱論壇- E9 E) S% n* V W& I9 Q/ _( I
