In June 2016, the British people voted by 52 per cent to 48 per cent to leave the European Union. But a 52/48 verdict would be “unfinished business by a long way”, the then UK Independence party leader Nigel Farage told the Daily Mirror on May 16 2016, when he feared a victory for the Remainers. Farage went on to say to the BBC that “there could be an unstoppable demand for a re-run of the EU referendum” should Remain win by a narrow margin. “Win or lose this battle,” he concluded, “we will win this war.” Yet the Brexiters now seek to deny to their opponents the very rights that they themselves claimed, and accuse Remainers who want to continue the debate of disrespecting the views of the people.
2016年6月，英国人以52%对48%的投票比例决定退出欧盟。但是，时任英国独立党(UKIP)领袖奈杰尔?法拉奇(Nigel Farage)在2016年5月16日告诉《每日镜报》(Daily Mirror)，52%对48%的裁决将是“远未了结的事务”，当时他担心留欧派获胜。法拉奇后来告诉英国广播公司(BBC)，如果留欧派以微弱优势获胜，“将会有势不可挡的重新举行欧盟公投的要求”。他总结道：“这场战役无论输赢。我们将会赢得战争。”然而，退欧派现在寻求不让对手行使他们自己曾经要求的权利，并指责想要继续这场辩论的留欧派不尊重人民的愿望。
Most Remainers seem hypnotised by the self-confidence of their opponents. The vast majority of Labour MPs and over half of Conservative MPs were, after all, Remainers. So there is a clear Remain majority in the Commons, and an even larger one in the Lords. In endorsing the EU withdrawal bill, MPs were voting for something in which they do not believe.
大多数留欧派人士似乎被对手的自信镇住了。毕竟，绝大多数工党议员和逾半数的保守党议员是留欧派人士。因此留欧派在议会下院占据明确多数，上院的留欧派优势甚至更加明显。支持退欧议案意味着，议员们投票支持了他们并不相信的事情。
In a recent survey by the CBI employers’ group, nearly 40 per cent of businesses reported that the Brexit vote had deleteriously affected their investment decisions. Yet the CBI campaigns, not to reverse Brexit, but merely to secure a transition period, and the CBI’s chief economist declared defensively that its purpose was not to “delay the process of leaving but to expedite it”.
在英国雇主组织——英国工商业联合会(CBI)最近开展的调查中，近40%的企业报告称，英国退欧公投对它们的投资决定产生了不利影响。然而CBI发起调查不是要逆转英国退欧，而只是要确保平稳过渡；CBI的首席经济学家辩称，其目的并非是“延迟、而是加快退欧进程”。
Nick Clegg, the former Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister in the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition from 2010 to 2015, seeks to dispel the belief that Brexit is inevitable. He is right. A democracy must have the freedom to change its mind. For, in the words of David Davis, the Brexit secretary: “If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.”
英国自由民主党前党魁、2010年至2015年在保守党/自由民主党联合政府中担任副首相的尼克?克莱格(Nick Clegg)，则试图打消英国退欧不可避免的信念。他是正确的。一个民主国家必须拥有改变想法的自由。因为，用英国退欧事务大臣戴维?戴维斯(David Davis)说过的话来说：“如果一个民主国家不能改变想法，它就不是一个民主国家。”
Belief in the inevitability of Brexit is fuelled by the view that Article 50, once invoked, is irreversible. That was the position both of the government and of Gina Miller, the litigant, in the case in which, in January, the Supreme Court ruled that parliamentary approval was needed before Article 50 could be invoked. Yet this view is utterly implausible. Invoking Article 50 begins a negotiation. At any time during a negotiation, one can decide not to continue. If I advertise my house for sale, I am not committed to selling it if offers fail to meet expectations.
英国退欧不可避免的信念受到这样一个观点的助推，即一旦触发欧盟第50条退出条款，那就是不可逆转的。这是在吉纳?米勒(Gina Miller)起诉英国政府一案中双方都持有的立场——今年1月，英国最高法院裁定，在触发欧盟第50条退出条款前需要获得议会批准。然而，这种观点是完全不可信的。触发第50条启动一个谈判进程。人们可以在谈判期间的任何时候决定不再继续。如果我登广告卖我的房子，如果潜在买家的出价没有达到我的预期，我不一定要卖它。
Unfortunately, only a third of Clegg’s short handbook is devoted to how Brexit might be stopped. The rest deals with familiar matters — Britain’s difficult relationship with the continent and the difficulties of the Brexit negotiations — and offers little new. When it comes to the referendum campaign, Clegg puts too much weight, surely, on the role of a moneyed elite in determining the outcome. Money cannot buy elections and there were, after all, wealthy elites on both sides. Clegg argues that, if only 16-year-olds had been given the vote, the result would have been different. But if the franchise for the referendum had departed from the parliamentary franchise, the Brexiters would have seen it as an establishment stitch-up and the result would have lacked legitimacy. Nonetheless, Clegg is right to stress that the inconclusive outcome of the 2017 election has reopened the issue, for it denied Theresa May the mandate she sought, and it may be that there is now no parliamentary majority for any ofthe forms of Brexit on offer.
遗憾的是，克莱格这本薄薄的小册子只有三分之一的内容是讲述如何阻止英国退欧的。其他篇幅讲述人们熟悉的话题——英国与欧洲大陆之间的棘手关系，以及英国退欧谈判的艰难——没啥新意。在公投拉票问题上，克莱格肯定有点过于强调富裕精英在决定公投结果中的角色。金钱不能收买选举，再说双方都有富裕精英。克莱格辩称，如果16岁的人有投票权，结果将会截然不同。但如果公投的投票权偏离议会的投票权，退欧派将会认为这是建制派玩的把戏，公投结果将会缺乏合法性。另一方面，克莱格正确地强调，2017年选举的不确定结果让这个问题重新出现，因为此次选举并没有赋予特里萨?梅(Theresa May)她要寻求的民意授权，现在议会中可能不存在支持任何形式英国退欧的多数。
Clegg’s proposals for reversing Brexit are unexceptionable. Remainers, he says, should join political parties, campaign in voluntary organisations and trade unions, and write letters to party leaders. All this is harmless stuff but unlikely to achieve much.
对于逆转英国退欧，克莱格的提议没有新奇之处。他说，留欧派人士应该加入政治党派，在志愿组织和工会中开展运动，并写信给政党领袖。所有这些都是无害的，但不太可能取得多大实效。
There is only one way in which Brexit can be reversed — through a referendum on the withdrawal agreement. In our new constitution the sovereignty of the people trumps the sovereignty of parliament. But if parliament alone cannot reverse Brexit, only parliament can authorise a referendum by attaching a referendum amendment to the withdrawal bill. If the Brexiters are right in their assessment of public opinion, they have nothing to fear, for the 2016 verdict would then be endorsed. But it is just possible that they are wrong.
只有一种方法有望逆转英国退欧——举行一场关于退欧协议的全民公投。在我们的新宪法中，人民主权胜过议会主权。但如果说议会本身无法逆转英国退欧，只有议会才能授权举行全民公投——只需在退欧议案中附加一个全民公投条款。如果退欧派对舆论的评估是正确的，他们就没啥可担心的，因为届时2016年的公投结果将会获得确认。但他们有可能是错误的。
评论
打印
