英國退歐沒有折中道路
Brexit means Brexit.
退歐就是退歐(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.
這句既重複又簡練的話極大地透露出英國首相特里薩•梅(Theresa May)的行事風格。
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.
我認爲這句話的意思是，在她看來，英國將正式脫離歐盟——不會出現二次全民公投或是議會推翻公投結果的情況。
If so, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the outcome will be hard Brexit.
如果這樣的話，看起來極有可能的結果將是一場硬退歐(hard Brexit)。
By hard Brexit I mean a departure not only from the EU but also from the customs union and the single market.
使用硬退歐一詞，我的意思是，英國不僅將脫離歐盟，還將退出關稅同盟和單一市場。
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.
然而，英國最終應當達成一項涵蓋商品、或許還包括部分服務的自由貿易安排，人們希望還能達成自由旅行安排。
But the passporting of UK-based financial institutions would end and London would cease to be the EU’s unrivalled financial capital.
但總部在英國的金融機構的護照將失效，倫敦將不再是歐盟首屈一指的金融中心。
The UK and the EU would also impose controls on their nationals’ ability to work in one another’s economies.
英國和歐盟還將對各自的公民到彼此經濟體中工作的能力加以限制。
This is not the outcome many desire.
這並非很多人希望看到的結果。
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.
正如日本政府已經非常明確地表明的，許多日本企業當初投資英國時，理所當然地相信英國可以提供一個穩固的基地，讓它們能夠以不輸於其他任何地方製造商的優越條件與歐盟其他地區進行貿易。
These businesses are understandably worried about their prospects.
這些企業對自身前景的擔憂是可以理解的。
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.
其他許多將規劃建立在假定英國有留在歐盟的確定政策之上的企業，也面臨同樣的情況。
Hard Brexit would disrupt their ld 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.
硬退歐將打亂這些企業的計劃。如果英國退出關稅同盟並與歐盟簽署自由貿易協定，原產地規則將適用於英國向歐盟的貨物出口。
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.
爲確保英國的進口不會成爲繞過歐盟對外關稅的路徑，這套標準的官僚程序是必要的。
Rules of origin would put UK-based exporters at a disadvantage vis-à-vis those based in the EU.
原產地規則將使得在英國的出口商相對於那些在歐盟的出口商處於不利地位。
The same would be true for, in particular, banks should the UK leave the single market.
如果英國脫離單一市場的話，同樣的情況也將適用於其他類型的企業，尤其是銀行。
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.
那麼，爲什麼硬退歐會是最可能的結果？我的理由是：本屆英國政府將不會設法扭轉此次公投的結果，而且它將認爲自己必須控制來自歐盟的移民，必須讓自身擺脫受到歐盟司法程序管理的歐盟監管規定。
Continued membership of the customs union or the single market, from outside the EU, would deprive the UK of legislative autonomy.
退出歐盟但繼續保留爲關稅同盟或單一市場的成員，將使英國失去立法自主權。
The former would mean it could not adopt its own trade policy.
留在關稅同盟意味着英國無法實施自己的貿易政策。
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.
留在單一市場意味着接受與單一市場相關的所有監管規定，卻對這些規定沒有任何發言權，還得繼續支持勞動力自由流動，可能還要出錢分擔預算。
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.
一個拒絕了歐盟成員資格的國家不會接受一個如此侮辱性的替代選擇，如果接受這種選擇，那將意味着一種比繼續留在歐盟還要嚴重得多的依賴狀態。
The only reasonable alternative to hard Brexit would be to stay inside the EU.
如果不想硬退歐，唯一合理的替代選擇就是留在歐盟。
Parliament is constitutionally entitled to ignore the vote result.
根據憲法，議會有權無視此次公投結果。
The people could also be asked if they wanted to change their minds.
也可以問問英國人民是不是想改變主意。
But the Conservatives would surely follow Labour into ruin if they tried to reverse the outcome.
但如果保守黨試圖扭轉公投結果的的話，它無疑將會步工黨的後塵、陷入內亂。
Their Brexiters would go berserk.
保守黨中支持退歐的人士會氣瘋。
Of course, it is logically possible that the EU might alter the terms of engagement.
當然，歐盟改變合作條款在邏輯上也是可能的。
It might, for example, change its mind on the sacred status of free movement.
例如，歐盟或許會改變觀念，不再將人口自由流動視爲一條神聖不可侵犯的原則。
If it had done so, the referendum would surely have had a different result.
如果歐盟早這樣做的話，退歐公投必然會出現一個不同的結果。
But this now looks near inconceivable.
但如今，這看起來幾乎是匪夷所思的。
If hard Brexit is, indeed, the destination, the aim must be to get there with the minimum of damage to both sides.
如果結局真的只能是硬退歐，那我們的目標必須是將雙方的損失降到最低。
Some Brexiters propose that the UK should repeal the European Communities Act, rather than go through Article 50.
一些退歐派人士提出，英國應廢除《歐共體法》(European Communities Act)，而非走里斯本條約第50條(Article 50)的程序。
That would violate its treaty obligations.
這樣做將違反英國的條約義務。
Such egregious treaty breaking would hardly be a helpful precursor to the negotiation of trade agreements.
此類破壞條約的糟糕行爲將不利於未來的貿易協定談判。
It is essential for the UK’s future to go through the formal process of negotiating a departure.
走談判退出歐盟的正式程序，對於英國的未來至關重要。
But, as Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform notes, that will be just one of six tough negotiations.
但正如歐洲改革中心(Centre for European Reform)的查爾斯•格蘭特(Charles Grant)指出的，這將只是6場艱苦談判當中的一場。
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.
其他談判還包括：與歐盟最終的貿易協定；在英國退出歐盟後、長期協定簽署前臨時發揮作用的過渡性協定；重新以獨立成員身份加入世界貿易組織(WTO)；與現在與歐盟簽有協議的約50個國家談判新的安排（應該還要與美國、中國等國談判新安排）；最後是英國與歐盟在外交與國防政策、警察和司法合作以及反恐方面的關係。
Make no mistake, this is going to take years.
別想錯，這一過程將需要數年時間。
A decision to adopt unilateral free trade, proposed by some Brexiters, would simplify this.
採用單邊自由貿易（如一些退歐派提出的）的決定將簡化這一進程。
It will not happen.
但這不會發生。
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，至關重要的談判（伴隨依照第50條的談判）是圍繞過渡期安排的，以確保英國不會一退歐就失去所有進入歐盟市場的優惠條件。
Ideally, this deal should be some sort of free trade plus.
理論上，這一協議應該是某種形式的自由貿易+。
How much it could be plus depends on flexibility on both sides, especially over free movement.
+多少取決於雙方的靈活性，尤其在人口自由流動方面。
In practice, it would probably not be very plus.
實際上，很可能不會+多少。
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.
但英國政府應聲明，在歐盟同意談判過渡性協議（如果過渡性協議能夠接近最終協議是最理想的）之前，它不會觸發第50條。
Do I like this outcome? No.
我喜歡這樣的結果嗎？不。
I would like a government prepared to overturn the referendum.
我更希望政府願意推翻上次的公投結果。
Nothing has changed my view that the UK is making a huge economic and strategic blunder.
我依然堅信，英國正在犯下一個巨大的經濟和戰略錯誤。
The country is going to be meaner and poorer.
英國將變得更破、更窮。
David Cameron will go down as one of the worst prime ministers in UK history.
戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)將成爲英國曆史上最糟糕的首相之一。
But the halfway houses between membership of the EU and hard Brexit are uninhabitable.
但在留歐與硬退歐之間，沒有走得通的中間道路。
So what now has to be done is to move to the miserable new dispensation as smoothly as possible.
所以，現在必須做的就是儘可能平穩地轉移到令人痛苦的新位置。
The UK has chosen a largely illusory autonomy over EU membership.
英國拋棄歐盟成員國資格，選擇了很大程度上徒有虛名的自主權。
That has consequences.
選了，就要承擔後果。
It will have to accept this grim reality and move as quickly as it can to whatever the future holds.
英國將不得不接受這一殘酷現實，儘可能快地奔向未來——無論會遇到什麼。
