英国如何避免退欧的灾难？
埃马纽埃尔•马克龙(Emmanuel Macron)本可以在与特里萨•梅(Theresa May)在巴黎会面时对梅羞辱一番。这位睿智程度超过本人年龄的法国总统告诉英国首相，重新思考英国与欧盟(EU)关系的大门仍然敞开着。英国应该抓住马克龙的话。有一条路径可以走出英国退欧的乱局。它要求重新把国家利益置于保守党利益之上。
In the pantheon of prime ministerial failures, Mrs May runs a close race with her predecessor David Cameron. As things stand, Mr Cameron claims the prize. The purpose of his premiership never reached beyond a sense of entitlement. His Brexit referendum reflected at once weakness and insouciant self-regard. He would first bow to the Tory Eurosceptics and then beat them.
在英国首相失误的“纪念堂”里，梅与前任戴维•卡梅伦(David Cameron)可谓相差无几。目前来看，胜出的是卡梅伦。他担任首相的目的从未超越一种特权意识。他的英国退欧公投同时反映出软弱和漫不经心的自我欣赏。他以为，他可以先向保守党的疑欧派屈服，然后击败他们。
Mrs May’s botched general election was more a matter of simple opportunism. She looked at the opinion polls, saw a chance to cast herself as the Iron Lady of Brexit, and fluffed it. Mr Cameron’s dismal record is fixed forever in the history books. Mrs May still has a chance to write a redeeming codicil.
梅搞砸了的英国大选，在更大程度上是一个简单的机会主义的问题。她在看过民调后，看到了把自己标榜为英国退欧的“铁娘子”的机会，没想到搞砸了。卡梅伦的糟糕记录已被载入史册。梅仍有更改“遗嘱”进行补救的机会。
The presumption uniting the two leaders has been that Britain’s place in its own continent is the private property of their party. From Margaret Thatcher’s defenestration in 1990 to John Major’s battles with so-called cabinet “bastards”, Mr Cameron’s plebiscite and Mrs May’s promised hard Brexit, the national interest has been subsumed in a private war. Now, a deal with the EU will be possible only if the prime minister puts country before party.
把两位领导人团结在一起的是这样一种假设：英国在其自身所属大陆的地位，是他们所在的政党的私有财产。从玛格丽特•撒切尔(Margaret Thatcher)在1990年被抛弃到约翰•梅杰(John Major)与所谓的内阁“混蛋”之间的斗争，从卡梅伦的全民公投到梅承诺的硬退欧，国家利益被一场私人战争吞噬。如今，只有梅将国家置于政党之上，与欧盟的协议才有可能达成。
The British people did not express a preference in the referendum as to what sort of Brexit they wanted. Insofar as they have given an opinion since, it has been to reject Mrs May’s prescription. She put national immigration controls and a purist’s view of sovereignty above prosperity and security. And she lost.
对于英国人想要什么样的退欧，他们没有在公投中表达过偏好。如果说他们此后表达过意见，那就是拒绝梅的方案。她把移民控制和纯粹主义的主权观置于繁荣和安全之上。结果失算了。
The first requirement now is for a measure of humility — though you could also call it realism. Mrs May could do worse than take a look at Europe through the lens of Paris, Berlin, or Brussels. British weakness is mirrored by growing continental confidence.
现在的第一个要求是拿出一点谦虚的态度，尽管你还可以称其为现实主义。梅不妨透过巴黎、柏林或布鲁塞尔的透镜看一看欧洲。英国暴露出弱势的同时，欧洲大陆的信心不断增强。
The EU27 have problems, certainly — think about resurgent authoritarianism in Poland and Hungary — but optimism has replaced pessimism as the prevailing emotion. The eurozone economy is growing, the election of a reformist French president promises to revive the Franco-German partnership, and leaders have united in their disdain of Donald Trump’s US administration. No one is following Britain’s lead in heading for the exit, and no one feels compelled to offer concessions to Mrs May.
当然，27个成员国的欧盟是有问题的，想想波兰和匈牙利再次复活的威权主义吧，但乐观已取代悲观，成为当前的主导情绪。欧元区经济在增长，法国选出一名改革派总统有望重振法德合作，而各国领导人共同鄙视唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)领导的美国行政当局。没有一个国家仿效英国退出欧盟，也没有人认为有必要向梅做出让步。
A British reset — and it probably falls on Philip Hammond, the chancellor, to persuade the prime minister — should start with the recognition that the previously imagined hard Brexit is impossible as well as undesirable. A distasteful electoral pact with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist party makes no difference. The government does not have the numbers to legislate for a clean break. Nor does it have the time or administrative capacity to negotiate a bespoke arrangement.
英国重启立场——说服首相的任务很可能落在财政大臣菲利普•哈蒙德(Philip Hammond)身上——应该从承认之前想象的硬退欧既不可能也不可取开始。与北爱尔兰的民主联盟党(Democratic Unionist party)签订令人恶心的选举协议并没有什么帮助。英国政府没有足够的议会席位来立法实现“干净退欧”。它也没有时间和行政能力来谈判达成一项定制安排。
The answer is a two-stage process. In the first, lasting perhaps five years beyond 2019, Britain would remain in the customs union and the single market through an arrangement within the European Economic Area — similar though not identical to that enjoyed by Norway. This pause, perhaps including a two-year notice clause if either side wished to withdraw, would allow for talks on a subsequent permanent association pact, embracing security and foreign policy as well as trade.
答案是两阶段过程。首先，可能在直到2019年后的5年内，英国仍然通过欧洲经济区(European Economic Area)内部的安排，留在关税同盟和单一市场内——与挪威的地位相似(尽管不完全相同)。这一暂缓阶段(可能包括2年的通知期——如果其中一方想要退出)将允许就接下来的永久性联系国协议展开谈判，解决安全、外交政策以及贸易方面的安排。
It goes without saying that such a deal would disadvantage Britain relative to today. It would be swapping a significant voice and influence in the shaping of European affairs for a small measure of autonomy. But this is in the nature of the Brexit decision. The choice is not one between “good” and “bad”, but one between less and more damaging.
毫无疑问，相比如今的情况，这样的协议不利于英国。它将意味着英国放弃在欧洲事务上重要的发言权和影响力，来换取较小程度的自治权。但这就是退欧决定的本质。它并不是“好”与“坏”的选择，而是两害相权取其轻。
A two-stage plan would have attractions for the EU27. Most obviously it would avoid the shock of a chaotic Brexit and would guarantee for several years ahead Britain’s contribution to the Brussels budget. Put crudely, Germany and France would not have to pay in more and the likes of Poland and Slovakia would not be obliged to accept less. 两阶段计划对欧盟27国也会有吸引力。最明显的好处是，它可以避免英国无序退欧带来的冲击，也可以确保未来几年英国继续对欧盟预算做出贡献。直白地讲，如此一来德国和法国不需要增加支出，而波兰和斯洛伐克等国获得的拨款也不必减少。
The bigger reason, though, is that a relatively smooth Brexit would give Germany, France and others the space to press ahead with deeper integration of eurozone economies and closer collaboration in defence and foreign policies — to add economic and political to the present monetary union.
不过，更重要的原因在于相对平稳的退欧会给德国、法国等国留下空间，使其得以深化欧元区经济一体化，并在国防和外交政策上实现更紧密的合作——在货币联盟的基础上增添经济和政治上的联盟。
The EU emerging from such a process would be one of concentric circles of nations radiating outwards according to their willingness to agree more or less co-ordination of national policies. There might well be space in one of the outer circles for a Britain anxious to maintain autonomy over economic policies, but willing to contribute more, say, to a European foreign policy.
完成这一过程后，欧盟成员国将形成一系列由内而外延伸的同心圆，各国所处位置取决于他们在多大程度上愿意协调国家政策。认为自治权的地位高于经济政策、但愿意为欧盟的外交政策做出更多贡献的英国，很可能在欧盟同心圆的外圈获得一席之地。
Hardline Brexiters will accept none of this. They are deluded. Negotiating this “soft” Brexit would not be a trouble-free endeavour. Britain would secure only limited concessions on free movement of workers. The objections, though, melt away when measured against the inanity of the Brexiters’ have-our-cake-and-eat-it deal or the certain chaos of a cliff-edge departure. There also happens to be a majority in parliament for an intelligent Brexit. So what is it going to be Mrs May — party or country?
强硬退欧派不会接受这样的计划。他们昏了头。谈判达成这样的“软”退欧不会容易。英国在劳工自由流动问题上只能争取到有限的让步。不过，相比退欧派打算两头不吃亏的无知大话、或者断崖式退欧必然引发的混乱，他们的反对根本站不住脚。恰好英国多数议员也支持明智的退欧。那么梅会怎么做呢——选择政党利益还是国家利益?
