英國選民應有機會就脫歐改變主意
The Brexit vote has created an environment of great uncertainty for Britain, the EU and the global economy.
英國脫歐公投爲英國、歐盟(EU)和全球經濟製造了一個巨大的不確定環境。
No one can predict with any confidence what will happen for at least the next three years, but economists are in unusual agreement that if Brexit occurs it will be bad for the UK and bad for the EU.
沒有人能有把握地預測至少未來3年內會發生什麼，但經濟學家不同尋常地達成了共識：如果英國脫歐，將對英國和歐盟不利。
How did we get here? One answer lies in choice architecture, the decision-making framework in which choices are made.
我們如何走到這個境地？一個答案在於選擇架構，即做出選擇所處的決策框架。
Consider the original charter of the EU.
以歐盟的原始章程爲例。
An important principle of good choice architecture is to anticipate how things might go wrong and take steps in advance to mitigate the damage.
良好選擇架構的一個重要原則是預測情況可能如何變糟，並提前採取措施減少損害。
In the formation of the EU, this step did not seem to attract the attention it deserved.
在歐盟成立過程中，這一步似乎沒有得到足夠的關注。
What will happen if a country breaks the rules but is financially unable to repay its debts? The ambiguity in this answer has been evident in the drama surrounding Greece and a possible Grexit.
如果一國違規但沒有財力償還債務會發生什麼情況？在圍繞希臘和可能的希臘退歐的鬧劇中，答案顯然相當模糊。
Another question that appears to have been left unanswered originally is what would happen if a country wanted to leave, as the UK might wish to do.
另一個從一開始似乎就沒有答案的問題是，如果一國希望離開歐盟會發生什麼情況，就像英國可能希望做的那樣。
The EU resembled the Hotel California described in the Eagles song, where, You can check out any time you like / But you can never leave.
歐盟就像老鷹樂隊(Eagles)所唱的《加州旅館》(Hotel California)，你可以隨時結賬，但你永遠無法離開。
Eventually this omission was addressed by the creation of the now famous Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, adopted in 2009, which provides the rules for a country that wishes to secure a divorce from the EU.
最終，如今著名的《里斯本條約》（Lisbon treaty，於2009年生效）第50條的出現解決了這種疏漏，爲希望退出歐盟的國家制定了規則。
(It has to be said that few states have provisions for leaving a union to which they belong; the US fought its deadliest war over such an issue.)
（必須承認，幾乎沒有國家有退出它們所屬聯盟的規定；美國曾就這個問題進行最慘烈的鬥爭。）
Although Article 50 was created to determine what happens in the case of a break-up, it is far from a full prenuptial agreement.
儘管第50條的設立是爲了確定一國如果要退出歐盟會發生什麼，但遠非一份完整的婚前協議。
Rather than stating the terms under which a country can leave, it only prescribes a process.
它沒有說明一國可以以什麼條件退出歐盟，只是規定了程序。
Once a country triggers Article 50, it has two years to negotiate terms and in the event that no agreement is reached (or extension granted), the country is out — and presumably treated like any other country, using the rules established by the World Trade Organisation.
一旦一國觸發第50條，它將獲得兩年的談判期，一旦沒有達成協議（或者獲准延期），該國即退出——可能會根據世界貿易組織(WTO)的規定獲得與其他任何國家一樣的待遇。
Making the rules so vague has had unintended consequences.
制定如此模糊的規則造成了意想不到的後果。
First, it allowed proponents of Brexit to offer voters the apparently unrealistic hope that the UK could negotiate an associate status similar to that of Norway, but with some modifications of the rules on free movement of people.
首先，它讓脫歐支持者得以向選民提供明顯不切實際的希望：英國可以商議一個與挪威類似的地位，但會略微修改人員自由流動方面的規則。
Second, the rule creates a long period of uncertainty for both the UK and other member states.
其次，這一規則爲英國和其他歐盟成員國製造出一種長期不確定性。
The UK could wait a year or more before triggering Article 50, to be followed by what would almost certainly be nearly two years of negotiations.
英國可能要等上一年或更長時間才觸發第50條，然後幾乎肯定要經歷近兩年的談判。
(International negotiations are like home improvement projects: they never finish early.) A better design would have been to spell out the details of a voluntary break-up in advance so any country would have a reasonably solid basis for evaluating the pros and cons of EU membership.
（國際談判就像家庭裝修一樣：永遠不會提前結束。）一個更好的設計原本可以提前列出自願退出的細節，這樣任何一國都會擁有一個相當堅實的衡量歐盟成員國身份優劣的基礎。
It may not be too late to remedy this situation if the EU can figure out a way to clarify the terms of an exit.
如果歐盟能找到明確退出條款的方法，修補這種狀況可能還不算太晚。
David Cameron, the former UK prime minister, was responsible for another piece of questionable choice architecture when he promised to hold the EU referendum.
英國前首相戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)在承諾舉行公投時，要對存在問題的選擇架構的另一方面負責。
When should voters be asked their opinion about policy questions? Governments vary greatly on the extent to which they rely on direct democracy rather than a combination of representative government plus bureaucratic agencies, such as central banks.
選民應何時被問到他們對於政策問題的看法？在多大程度上依賴直接民主而非代議制政府和官僚機構（例如央行）的結合體，各地政府的做法大不一樣。
As an example, Switzerland and the state of California regularly rely on referendums to make decisions, but the US government never does.
例如，瑞士和美國加州會定期舉行公投做出決定，但美國政府從不這樣。
When governments have the option to use either method, how should they choose? A good rule of thumb is that the more complicated the decision, the less desirable a referendum.
當政府有使用其中任何一種方法的選擇時，他們應如何選擇？一條很好的經驗是，決定越複雜，公投越不可取。
And it is hard to think of a more complex choice than Europe to put to voters.
很難想象出一個比歐洲更復雜的交給選民決定的選擇了。
Furthermore, given the ambiguity of Article 50, voters had no way of knowing what outcomes would come from a vote to Remain or Leave.
另外，鑑於第50條的模糊性，選民無法知道留歐或退歐的公投結果將意味着什麼。
Theresa May, now prime minister, made this point before the vote: The reality is that we do not know on what terms we would have access to the single market.
英國新首相特里薩•梅(Theresa May)在公投前就指出：現實是我們不知道我們進入歐洲單一市場的條款會是什麼。
But the referendum was held, so the question is what to do now.
但公投已經舉行了，因此問題是現在怎麼辦。
Certainly a majority of just four percentage points in a nonbinding referendum should not be considered a mandate to hastily invoke Article 50.
當然，在一場不具法律約束力的公投中領先區區4個百分點的多數票，不應被視爲一項倉促激活第50條的授權。
The vote was more like a straw poll of voter sentiments about a range of issues than a considered evaluation of the costs and benefits of membership of the single market.
這場公投更像是衡量選民對一系列問題看法的民意測驗，而不是對歐洲單一市場成員國身份的成本與收益的審慎評估。
Since voters were given a choice that was impossible to evaluate sensibly, they should be given the opportunity to change their mind if the facts change — either via a vote of parliament or a second referendum.
既然選民們是被要求做出不可能理性評估的選擇，那麼如果事實發生變化，他們應有機會改變心意——要麼通過議會投票，要麼通過二次公投。
In short, Brexit should not mean (an immediate) Brexit.
簡而言之，英國脫歐不應意味着英國（立即）脫歐。
