書評(píng)：克萊格的阻止退歐之戰(zhàn)
2016年6月，英國(guó)人以52%對(duì)48%的投票比例決定退出歐盟。但是，時(shí)任英國(guó)獨(dú)立黨(UKIP)領(lǐng)袖奈杰爾•法拉奇(Nigel Farage)在2016年5月16日告訴《每日鏡報(bào)》(Daily Mirror)，52%對(duì)48%的裁決將是“遠(yuǎn)未了結(jié)的事務(wù)”，當(dāng)時(shí)他擔(dān)心留歐派獲勝。法拉奇后來告訴英國(guó)廣播公司(BBC)，如果留歐派以微弱優(yōu)勢(shì)獲勝，“將會(huì)有勢(shì)不可擋的重新舉行歐盟公投的要求”。他總結(jié)道：“這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)役無論輸贏。我們將會(huì)贏得戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。”然而，退歐派現(xiàn)在尋求不讓對(duì)手行使他們自己曾經(jīng)要求的權(quán)利，并指責(zé)想要繼續(xù)這場(chǎng)辯論的留歐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.
大多數(shù)留歐派人士似乎被對(duì)手的自信鎮(zhèn)住了。畢竟，絕大多數(shù)工黨議員和逾半數(shù)的保守黨議員是留歐派人士。因此留歐派在議會(huì)下院占據(jù)明確多數(shù)，上院的留歐派優(yōu)勢(shì)甚至更加明顯。支持退歐議案意味著，議員們投票支持了他們并不相信的事情。
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”.
在英國(guó)雇主組織——英國(guó)工商業(yè)聯(lián)合會(huì)(CBI)最近開展的調(diào)查中，近40%的企業(yè)報(bào)告稱，英國(guó)退歐公投對(duì)它們的投資決定產(chǎn)生了不利影響。然而CBI發(fā)起調(diào)查不是要逆轉(zhuǎn)英國(guó)退歐，而只是要確保平穩(wěn)過渡;CBI的首席經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家辯稱，其目的并非是“延遲、而是加快退歐進(jìn)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.”
英國(guó)自由民主黨前黨魁、2010年至2015年在保守黨/自由民主黨聯(lián)合政府中擔(dān)任副首相的尼克•克萊格(Nick Clegg)，則試圖打消英國(guó)退歐不可避免的信念。他是正確的。一個(gè)民主國(guó)家必須擁有改變想法的自由。因?yàn)?，用英?guó)退歐事務(wù)大臣戴維•戴維斯(David Davis)說過的話來說：“如果一個(gè)民主國(guó)家不能改變想法，它就不是一個(gè)民主國(guó)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.
英國(guó)退歐不可避免的信念受到這樣一個(gè)觀點(diǎn)的助推，即一旦觸發(fā)歐盟第50條退出條款，那就是不可逆轉(zhuǎn)的。這是在吉納•米勒(Gina Miller)起訴英國(guó)政府一案中雙方都持有的立場(chǎng)——今年1月，英國(guó)最高法院裁定，在觸發(fā)歐盟第50條退出條款前需要獲得議會(huì)批準(zhǔn)。然而，這種觀點(diǎn)是完全不可信的。觸發(fā)第50條啟動(dòng)一個(gè)談判進(jìn)程。人們可以在談判期間的任何時(shí)候決定不再繼續(xù)。如果我登廣告賣我的房子，如果潛在買家的出價(jià)沒有達(dá)到我的預(yù)期，我不一定要賣它。
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 of the forms of Brexit on offer.
遺憾的是，克萊格這本薄薄的小冊(cè)子只有三分之一的內(nèi)容是講述如何阻止英國(guó)退歐的。其他篇幅講述人們熟悉的話題——英國(guó)與歐洲大陸之間的棘手關(guān)系，以及英國(guó)退歐談判的艱難——沒啥新意。在公投拉票問題上，克萊格肯定有點(diǎn)過于強(qiáng)調(diào)富裕精英在決定公投結(jié)果中的角色。金錢不能收買選舉，再說雙方都有富裕精英。克萊格辯稱，如果16歲的人有投票權(quán)，結(jié)果將會(huì)截然不同。但如果公投的投票權(quán)偏離議會(huì)的投票權(quán)，退歐派將會(huì)認(rèn)為這是建制派玩的把戲，公投結(jié)果將會(huì)缺乏合法性。另一方面，克萊格正確地強(qiáng)調(diào)，2017年選舉的不確定結(jié)果讓這個(gè)問題重新出現(xiàn)，因?yàn)榇舜芜x舉并沒有賦予特里薩•梅(Theresa May)她要尋求的民意授權(quán)，現(xiàn)在議會(huì)中可能不存在支持任何形式英國(guó)退歐的多數(shù)。
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.
對(duì)于逆轉(zhuǎn)英國(guó)退歐，克萊格的提議沒有新奇之處。他說，留歐派人士應(yīng)該加入政治黨派，在志愿組織和工會(huì)中開展運(yùn)動(dòng)，并寫信給政黨領(lǐng)袖。所有這些都是無害的，但不太可能取得多大實(shí)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.
只有一種方法有望逆轉(zhuǎn)英國(guó)退歐——舉行一場(chǎng)關(guān)于退歐協(xié)議的全民公投。在我們的新憲法中，人民主權(quán)勝過議會(huì)主權(quán)。但如果說議會(huì)本身無法逆轉(zhuǎn)英國(guó)退歐，只有議會(huì)才能授權(quán)舉行全民公投——只需在退歐議案中附加一個(gè)全民公投條款。如果退歐派對(duì)輿論的評(píng)估是正確的，他們就沒啥可擔(dān)心的，因?yàn)閷脮r(shí)2016年的公投結(jié)果將會(huì)獲得確認(rèn)。但他們有可能是錯(cuò)誤的。
How to Stop Brexit (And Make Britain Great Again) , by Nick Clegg, Bodley Head, RRP£8.99, 48 pages
《如何阻止英國(guó)退歐(并讓英國(guó)再次偉大)》(How to Stop Brexit (And Make Britain Great Again))，尼克•克萊格著，Bodley Head出版，建議零售價(jià)8.99英鎊，48頁
