評論
打印
The Palace of Westminster
威斯敏斯特宮
House of Cards
紙牌屋
The mounting case for MPs to abandon Westminster
議員們正被要求撤離威斯敏斯特宮
OBSERVE the Palace of Westminster on a rainy night, and you may see lights strangely flickering in its 1,100 rooms. Leaks not caught by buckets interfere with mice-gnawed cables crammed into Victorian holes. But the damp and drips have one advantage: they temporarily curb the risk of fires in the many bits of this creaking, neo-Gothic edifice that are not protected by sprinklers.
雨夜里的威斯敏斯特宮，怪異的燈光充斥著1100間房屋。滿是老鼠嚙痕的繩子捆綁著的水桶，并未接住滲入的雨水，任其流進威斯敏斯特宮中的維多利亞時期的孔洞。但這潮濕的環境和滲入的雨滴卻有一優勢：在這種老式房屋中可暫時抑制火災發生的可能，而帶有自動噴水滅火裝置的新哥特式建筑卻并未有此般防護性能。
The palace is in a bad way. In a speech on March 2nd John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, argued that it is decaying faster than it is being repaired. He claimed that fixing Parliament could cost some 3 billion. It came to only about a third more to build a new terminal at Heathrow Airport.
威斯敏斯特宮的狀況很不好。英國下議院發言人約翰伯科在3月2日的演講中指出，威斯敏斯特宮的破損程度遠遠快于其修葺速度。他強調，修繕國會大廈將花費30億歐元。該費用較建造一個希思羅機場的航站樓費用的三分之一還要多。
The efficient option would be for MPs to move somewhere else while workers revamp the palace, yanking out thickets of wiring and replacing the lot, for example. But politicians do not warm to the prospect of being far from government departments, television studios and a decent plate of spaghetti alle vongole. Andrew Griffiths, a Conservative MP, shudders at the thought of “moving to an office block in Slough for five or ten years”.
或許讓議員們在工人翻修國會大廈期間搬離此處是個不錯的決定，比如會扔掉原來那些錯綜復雜的布線，還有重新換掉很多東西。但是政治家們卻對搬離的提議并不感冒，他們更享受在威斯敏斯特宮被鏡頭聚焦和更體面的餐點伙食。一位名為安德烈格里菲斯的保守黨議員在聽聞“要搬去斯勞辦公室5年亦或10年”的消息后，整個人震驚不已。
Parliament is expected to vote on the matter not long after the general election. It may consider leaving for good. Mr Bercow warned that if the palace is not repaired in the next decade, legislators will have to “abandon this site and look elsewhere”. But that might not be such a bad thing. The palace is poorly suited to its purpose: no amount of repairs will make the House of Commons chamber big enough to let all MPs sit down, for example. Nor will they remove the fusty atmosphere of the place—more mid-market country hotel than hub of modern democracy.
國會大廈修葺一事將在大選之后馬上進行投票決議。議員們很可能謀求更好的安身之地。伯科先生提出警告，若是未來十年議會大廈得不到修復，那么議員們將不得不“拋棄此地另覓良居”。而這也并不是一件壞事。老舊的威斯敏斯特宮并不能完全滿足其議員辦公之用：比如，若不經翻修，老舊的下議院議事廳根本不能容下所有議員參與會議。也不能改變下議會大廈的陳腐氛圍—相較于一個現代民主的中心它更像是一間外貌平平的鄉村旅館。
It is not clear where Parliament would go. The big northern cities have been touted (Andrew Adonis, a Labour peer, has suggested moving the Lords to Salford Quays, outside Manchester). Even more far-fetched proposals include a purpose-built capital like Brasilia or Washington, or a roving legislature. Michael Fabricant has invited fellow MPs to use the cathedral in his seat of Lichfield in Staffordshire—though he warns that legislative sessions would have to fit around services.
議會的落腳點尚未明晰。而北方的大城市已經被夸的天花亂墜（工黨貴族安德烈阿多尼斯，已建議將上議院搬至曼徹斯特市外索爾福德碼頭）。甚至還有其他天馬行空的提議，比如專門建造像巴西利亞和華盛頓一樣的首都，或者直接就是一個移動的立法機關。邁克爾法布里坎特已建議在他擁有一個席位的斯塔福德郡利奇菲爾德，使用大教堂作為議會去處—盡管他一再警告，立法會議本應適應其職能。
And what to do with Westminster? Generation Rent, a group campaigning for tenants'rights, has a bright idea. It has commissioned plans to turn the palace into 364 affordable flats, complete with swimming pool and library. But most assume it should become a museum. As Hugo Summerson, a former Tory MP, sniffed in 1991: “We need a brand-new facility, and we should leave this place to the Americans and the Japanese.”
那威斯敏斯特宮要如何是好？租房一代—為房客謀權的一個組織—有個絕妙的辦法。它提議將威斯敏斯特宮改造成為364間經濟適用房，同時配備游泳池和圖書館。但是更多人認為它應改造成一個博物館。早在1991年，就有前保守黨議員雨果薩默森曾抱怨：“我們需要一個全新的辦公場所，我們應該把這個地方棄給美國人和日本人。”譯者：張娣 校對：陳思思
譯文屬譯生譯世
