【经济学人】脱欧，正是开始！|2017年2月23日|总第827期

IT WAS certainly a majestic setting. The House of Lords was resplendent with gilt, glass, a bevy of bishops and many geriatric former politicians crammed onto its red leather benches. And there perched on a parapet just below the glittering royal throne sat Theresa May, on a highly unusual visit to the upper house.（读者试译句）

英国的上议院十分壮丽，有金碧辉煌的墙壁，装饰着花纹的玻璃。上议院的红皮长椅上坐满了神职议员、年长的前任政客们。“期待您的翻译，将您的理解留言在文章下方留言处，第二天将会有长难句解析哟～”

The reason for the prime minister’s presence on February 20th was that the Lords were starting to debate the bill authorising her to invoke Article 50, the treaty procedure for leaving the European Union. Although (or because) they are unelected, the quality of their debate far exceeded that in the Commons a fortnight ago.

上议院开始就是否允许特雷莎·梅援引关于脱欧程序的《里斯本条约》第五十条展开辩论，于是英国首相特蕾莎梅在2月20日出席上议院会议。虽然上议院的大多数议员都是未经过选举的，但就两周前下议院同样就第五十条法案展开辩论的来看，其辩论水平远远不如这次。

Lord Hague, a former Tory leader, loudly denounced Tony Blair, a former Labour prime minister, for inviting people to “rise up” against Brexit (see Bagehot). Lord Mandelson, Mr Blair’s close ally, responded that Brexit supporters did not want Britain to be poorer and politically isolated, and so should be entitled to change their minds. Lords Lawson and Lamont, both former Tory chancellors, attacked as undemocratic the idea of amending a bill that had not only passed the Commons unscathed but also reflected one of the biggest votes in British history.

前保守党领导人黑格强烈谴责前英国首相布莱尔怂恿民众“起义”反对脱欧（详见巴杰特）。布莱尔的亲信曼德尔森回应说，脱欧支持者不希望英国出现国力衰退，政治上被孤立的情况，当然他们也有权利改变他们的主意。前保守党大臣劳森和拉蒙特将此修改条款的做法视为非民主的行为，这不仅能毫发无损地通过下议院颁布这项法令，也反映了英国史上影响力范围最大的一次投票。

Even so, because the government lacks a majority in the upper house, the Lords will try to amend the bill. One amendment could demand a bigger role for Parliament. Another would try to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in Britain to stay put. Their Lordships might even demand a second referendum on the precise terms of Brexit. This idea was supported not just by Liberal Democrats and Scottish Nationalists but by other luminaries, including Lord Butler, a former cabinet secretary.

即使如此，因为特雷莎·梅的保守党在上议院没有占多数席位，上议院将设法修改法案。其中一项修改需要议会的更多帮助，另一项是设法保证欧盟人民在英国的权利。苏格兰当局就关于是否脱欧推动苏格兰进行第二次公投。这个想法不仅得到了自由民主党和苏格兰民族主义者的支持，还得到了其他名人的支持，如前内阁秘书巴特勒勋爵。

But peers also made clear that they will eventually back down and let an unamended bill become law in the first half of March. And that will allow Mrs May to invoke Article 50 in good time to avoid overtly spoiling the EU’s 60th birthday bash in Rome on March 25th, a party she has already said she will not attend.

但是贵族们也明白他们最后得做出让步，并且在3月上旬通过未经修改的法案。这样梅夫人就可以提前援引《里斯本条约》第五十条，从而避免扰乱3月25日欧盟在罗马举行的60周年庆典，因为她已经表示不会出席这个庆典。

The real problem with the debate was its focus on procedure, not substance. Peers are doubtless right to call for closer parliamentary involvement. They are also right to object to Mrs May’s plan to present Parliament after her Brexit negotiations with what Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a former diplomat often credited with writing Article 50, called Hobson’s choice: a bad Brexit deal or, in his view worse, no deal at all. In effect, Mrs May has now set the terms of Brexit as either hard or chaotic.

他们同样有权利反对梅夫人递交给国会的计划，这是她与前外交官来自Kinlochard的科尔勋爵（人们把他称为里斯本第50条法令的起草者）商讨后得出的所谓霍布森的选择（又称为别无选择的做法）：糟糕的脱欧计划，或者对他来说，根本就算不上计划。事实上，梅夫人现在设立的关于脱欧具体条款是难以实现和无比混乱的。

Yet once Article 50 is invoked, the argument over Brexit will instantly become substantive. Trading arrangements, a new migration regime, the future of regulation, security and defence co-operation, money and much else will be on the table. And as Lord Hill, a former European commissioner, noted in the debate, what will matter then is not what the British government wants but what the other 27 countries are prepared to offer, as the bargaining power is mainly on their side.

第五十条一旦通过，脱欧将会马上变成实质性的问题。那么贸易协定、新的移民机制、未来的监管、安全防务合作、货币还有其他问题都亟待解决。前欧盟专员希尔在辩论中注意到，重要的不是英国政府的需求，而是其他的27个国家能提供给英国什么，因为谈判主导权掌握在其他的27各国家手中。

The big risk is that the eventual result will be good neither for Britain nor for the EU. In a new paper for the Centre for European Reform, a think-tank, Charles Grant notes that this is because “both the UK and the 27 are placing politics and principles ahead of economically optimal outcomes.” Sadly, it was ever thus.

英国脱欧后的一大风险就是，最终的所有结果都不利于英国和欧盟的发展。查尔斯-格兰特提到了欧洲改革中心（智囊团）的一篇新文章，这是因为“英国和其他27个国家都注重政治和原则而不是经济最优结果”，悲哀的是，这已经是普遍的想法了。

This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline "Lords-a-leaping"

该文章将出现在印刷版英国板块，题为《贵族式跳跃》

翻译 ▍栏目六第一组

审核 ▍Arias

编辑 ▍且听风吟