書評:克萊格的阻止退歐之戰

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，英國人以52%對48%的投票比例決定退出歐盟。但是，時任英國獨立黨(UKIP)領袖奈傑爾?法拉奇(Nigel Farage)在2016年5月16日告訴《每日鏡報》(Daily Mirror)，52%對48%的裁決將是“遠未了結的事務”，當時他擔心留歐派獲勝。法拉奇後來告訴英國廣播公司(BBC)，如果留歐派以微弱優勢獲勝，“將會有勢不可擋的重新舉行歐盟公投的要求”。他總結道：“這場戰役無論輸贏。我們將會贏得戰爭。”然而，退歐派現在尋求不讓對手行使他們自己曾經要求的權利，並指責想要繼續這場辯論的留歐派不尊重人民的願望。

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.

大多數留歐派人士似乎被對手的自信鎮住了。畢竟，絕大多數工黨議員和逾半數的保守黨議員是留歐派人士。因此留歐派在議會下院佔據明確多數，上院的留歐派優勢甚至更加明顯。支持退歐議案意味着，議員們投票支持了他們並不相信的事情。

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”.

在英國僱主組織——英國工商業聯合會(CBI)最近開展的調查中，近40%的企業報告稱，英國退歐公投對它們的投資決定產生了不利影響。然而CBI發起調查不是要逆轉英國退歐，而只是要確保平穩過渡；CBI的首席經濟學家辯稱，其目的並非是“延遲、而是加快退歐進程”。

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.”

英國自由民主黨前黨魁、2010年至2015年在保守黨/自由民主黨聯合政府中擔任副首相的尼克?克萊格(Nick Clegg)，則試圖打消英國退歐不可避免的信念。他是正確的。一個民主國家必須擁有改變想法的自由。因爲，用英國退歐事務大臣戴維?戴維斯(David Davis)說過的話來說：“如果一個民主國家不能改變想法，它就不是一個民主國家。”

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.

英國退歐不可避免的信念受到這樣一個觀點的助推，即一旦觸發歐盟第50條退出條款，那就是不可逆轉的。這是在吉納?米勒(Gina Miller)起訴英國政府一案中雙方都持有的立場——今年1月，英國最高法院裁定，在觸發歐盟第50條退出條款前需要獲得議會批准。然而，這種觀點是完全不可信的。觸發第50條啓動一個談判進程。人們可以在談判期間的任何時候決定不再繼續。如果我登廣告賣我的房子，如果潛在買家的出價沒有達到我的預期，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 ofthe forms of Brexit on offer.

遺憾的是，克萊格這本薄薄的小冊子只有三分之一的內容是講述如何阻止英國退歐的。其他篇幅講述人們熟悉的話題——英國與歐洲大陸之間的棘手關係，以及英國退歐談判的艱難——沒啥新意。在公投拉票問題上，克萊格肯定有點過於強調富裕精英在決定公投結果中的角色。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，結果將會截然不同。但如果公投的投票權偏離議會的投票權，退歐派將會認爲這是建制派玩的把戲，公投結果將會缺乏合法性。另一方面，克萊格正確地強調，2017年選舉的不確定結果讓這個問題重新出現，因爲此次選舉並沒有賦予特里薩?梅(Theresa May)她要尋求的民意授權，現在議會中可能不存在支持任何形式英國退歐的多數。

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.

對於逆轉英國退歐，克萊格的提議沒有新奇之處。他說，留歐派人士應該加入政治黨派，在志願組織和工會中開展運動，並寫信給政黨領袖。所有這些都是無害的，但不太可能取得多大實效。

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英國退歐——舉行一場關於退歐協議的全民公投。在我們的新憲法中，人民主權勝過議會主權。但如果說議會本身無法逆轉英國退歐，只有議會才能授權舉行全民公投——只需在退歐議案中附加一個全民公投條款。如果退歐派對輿論的評估是正確的，他們就沒啥可擔心的，因爲屆時2016年的公投結果將會獲得確認。但他們有可能是錯誤的。