英国退欧没有折中道路

Brexit means Brexit.” As circular as it is concise, this three-word sentence tells us much about the style of Theresa May, the UK prime minister. I take this to mean that the UK will, in her view, formally leave the EU, without the option of a second referendum or a parliamentary override. If so, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the outcome will be “hard Brexit”.

“退欧就是退欧(Brexit means Brexit)。”这句既重复又简练的话极大地透露出英国首相特里萨•梅(Theresa May)的行事风格。我认为这句话的意思是，在她看来，英国将正式脱离欧盟——不会出现二次全民公投或是议会推翻公投结果的情况。如果这样的话，看起来极有可能的结果将是一场“硬退欧”(hard Brexit)。

By “hard Brexit” I mean a departure not only from the EU but also from the customs union and the single market. The UK should, however, end up with a free-trade arrangement that covers goods and possibly some parts of services and, one hopes, liberal travel arrangements. But the “passporting” of UK-based financial institutions would end and London would cease to be the EU’s unrivalled financial capital. The UK and the EU would also impose controls on their nationals’ ability to work in one another’s economies.

使用“硬退欧”一词，我的意思是，英国不仅将脱离欧盟，还将退出关税同盟和单一市场。然而，英国最终应当达成一项涵盖商品、或许还包括部分服务的自由贸易安排，人们希望还能达成自由旅行安排。但总部在英国的金融机构的“护照”将失效，伦敦将不再是欧盟首屈一指的金融中心。英国和欧盟还将对各自的公民到彼此经济体中工作的能力加以限制。

This is not the outcome many desire. As the Japanese government has made brutally clear, many Japanese businesses invested in the UK in the justified belief that the latter would provide a stable base for trade with the rest of the EU on terms as favourable as those available to producers anywhere else. These businesses are understandably worried about their prospects. The same applies to many others whose plans were made on the assumption that the UK had a settled policy of staying inside the EU.

这并非很多人希望看到的结果。正如日本政府已经非常明确地表明的，许多日本企业当初投资英国时，理所当然地相信英国可以提供一个稳固的基地，让它们能够以不输于其他任何地方制造商的优越条件与欧盟其他地区进行贸易。这些企业对自身前景的担忧是可以理解的。其他许多将规划建立在假定英国有留在欧盟的确定政策之上的企业，也面临同样的情况。

“Hard Brexit” would disrupt their plans.Should the UK leave the customs union and enter a free-trade agreement with the EU, rules of origin would apply to exports of goods from the UK to the EU. This standard bureaucratic procedure would be needed to ensure that imports into the UK did not become a route to circumvent the EU’s external tariff. Rules of origin would put UK-based exporters at a disadvantage vis-à-vis those based in the EU. The same would be true for, in particular, banks should the UK leave the single market.

“硬退欧”将打乱这些企业的计划。如果英国退出关税同盟并与欧盟签署自由贸易协定，原产地规则将适用于英国向欧盟的货物出口。为确保英国的进口不会成为绕过欧盟对外关税的路径，这套标准的官僚程序是必要的。原产地规则将使得在英国的出口商相对于那些在欧盟的出口商处于不利地位。如果英国脱离单一市场的话，同样的情况也将适用于其他类型的企业，尤其是银行。

Why then is a hard Brexit the most likely outcome? My belief rests on the view that this UK government will not seek to reverse the result of the vote and that it will feel obliged to impose controls on immigration from the EU and to free itself from the bloc’s regulations overseen by its judicial processes.

那么，为什么“硬退欧”会是最可能的结果?我的理由是：本届英国政府将不会设法扭转此次公投的结果，而且它将认为自己必须控制来自欧盟的移民，必须让自身摆脱受到欧盟司法程序管理的欧盟监管规定。

Continued membership of the customs union or the single market, from outside the EU, would deprive the UK of legislative autonomy. The former would mean it could not adopt its own trade policy. The latter would mean accepting all regulations relating to the single market, without possessing any say on them, continuing with free movement of labour, and, probably, paying budget contributions. A country that has rejected membership is not going to accept so humiliating an alternative. It would be a state of dependence far worse than continued EU membership.

退出欧盟但继续保留为关税同盟或单一市场的成员，将使英国失去立法自主权。留在关税同盟意味着英国无法实施自己的贸易政策。留在单一市场意味着接受与单一市场相关的所有监管规定，却对这些规定没有任何发言权，还得继续支持劳动力自由流动，可能还要出钱分担预算。一个拒绝了欧盟成员资格的国家不会接受一个如此侮辱性的替代选择，如果接受这种选择，那将意味着一种比继续留在欧盟还要严重得多的依赖状态。

The only reasonable alternative to hard Brexit would be to stay inside the EU. Parliament is constitutionally entitled to ignore the vote result. The people could also be asked if they wanted to change their minds. But the Conservatives would surely follow Labour into ruin if they tried to reverse the outcome. Their Brexiters would go berserk.

如果不想硬退欧，唯一合理的替代选择就是留在欧盟。根据宪法，议会有权无视此次公投结果。也可以问问英国人民是不是想改变主意。但如果保守党试图扭转公投结果的的话，它无疑将会步工党的后尘、陷入内乱。保守党中支持退欧的人士会气疯。

Of course, it is logically possible that the EU might alter the terms of engagement. It might, for example, change its mind on the sacred status of free movement. If it had done so, the referendum would surely have had a different result. But this now looks near inconceivable.

当然，欧盟改变合作条款在逻辑上也是可能的。例如，欧盟或许会改变观念，不再将人口自由流动视为一条神圣不可侵犯的原则。如果欧盟早这样做的话，退欧公投必然会出现一个不同的结果。但如今，这看起来几乎是匪夷所思的。

If “hard Brexit” is, indeed, the destination, the aim must be to get there with the minimum of damage to both sides. Some Brexiters propose that the UK should repeal the European Communities Act, rather than go through Article 50. That would violate its treaty obligations. Such egregious treaty breaking would hardly be a helpful precursor to the negotiation of trade agreements.

如果结局真的只能是“硬退欧”，那我们的目标必须是将双方的损失降到最低。一些退欧派人士提出，英国应废除《欧共体法》(European Communities Act)，而非走里斯本条约第50条(Article 50)的程序。这样做将违反英国的条约义务。此类破坏条约的糟糕行为将不利于未来的贸易协定谈判。

It is essential for the UK’s future to go through the formal process of negotiating a departure. But, as Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform notes, that will be just one of six tough negotiations. The others will be: an ultimate trade pact with the EU; an interim agreement with the bloc, to cover the period between exit and the longer-term deal; re-entry into the World Trade Organisation as a full member; new arrangements with the 50 or so countries that now have an accord with the EU and, presumably, with additional countries, too, such as the US and China; and, finally, UK-EU ties in foreign and defence policy, police and judicial co-operation and counter-terrorism.

走谈判退出欧盟的正式程序，对于英国的未来至关重要。但正如欧洲改革中心(Centre for European Reform)的查尔斯•格兰特(Charles Grant)指出的，这将只是6场艰苦谈判当中的一场。其他谈判还包括：与欧盟最终的贸易协定;在英国退出欧盟后、长期协定签署前临时发挥作用的过渡性协定;重新以独立成员身份加入世界贸易组织(WTO);与现在与欧盟签有协议的约50个国家谈判新的安排(应该还要与美国、中国等国谈判新安排);最后是英国与欧盟在外交与国防政策、警察和司法合作以及反恐方面的关系。

Make no mistake, this is going to take years. A decision to adopt unilateral free trade, proposed by some Brexiters, would simplify this. It will not happen.

别想错，这一过程将需要数年时间。采用单边自由贸易(如一些退欧派提出的)的决定将简化这一进程。但这不会发生。

In all this, the crucial negotiation, to accompany talks under Article 50, is over transitional arrangements, to ensure the UK does not lose all preferential access to EU markets upon leaving.

其中，至关重要的谈判(伴随依照第50条的谈判)是围绕过渡期安排的，以确保英国不会一退欧就失去所有进入欧盟市场的优惠条件。

Ideally, this deal should be some sort of “free trade plus”. How much it could be “plus” depends on flexibility on both sides, especially over free movement. In practice, it would probably not be very plus. But the UK government should state that it will not trigger Article 50 until the EU agrees to discuss a transitional agreement that, ideally, would be close to a final one.

理论上，这一协议应该是某种形式的“自由贸易+”。“+”多少取决于双方的灵活性，尤其在人口自由流动方面。实际上，很可能不会“+”多少。但英国政府应声明，在欧盟同意谈判过渡性协议(如果过渡性协议能够接近最终协议是最理想的)之前，它不会触发第50条。

Do I like this outcome? No. I would like a government prepared to overturn the referendum. Nothing has changed my view that the UK is making a huge economic and strategic blunder. The country is going to be meaner and poorer. David Cameron will go down as one of the worst prime ministers in UK history. But the halfway houses between membership of the EU and hard Brexit are uninhabitable. So what now has to be done is to move to the miserable new dispensation as smoothly as possible.

我喜欢这样的结果吗?不。我更希望政府愿意推翻上次的公投结果。我依然坚信，英国正在犯下一个巨大的经济和战略错误。英国将变得更破、更穷。戴维•卡梅伦(David Cameron)将成为英国历史上最糟糕的首相之一。但在留欧与硬退欧之间，没有走得通的中间道路。所以，现在必须做的就是尽可能平稳地转移到令人痛苦的新位置。

The UK has chosen a largely illusory autonomy over EU membership. That has consequences. It will have to accept this grim reality and move as quickly as it can to whatever the future holds.

英国抛弃欧盟成员国资格，选择了很大程度上徒有虚名的自主权。选了，就要承担后果。英国将不得不接受这一残酷现实，尽可能快地奔向未来——无论会遇到什么。