经济学人下载:脱欧进程 "贵族式跳跃"(2)

But peers also made clear that they will eventually back down and let an unamended bill become law in the first half of March.
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。

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.
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.
辩论的实质问题在于程序上而非内容上。

Peers are doubtless right to call for closer parliamentary involvement.
毫无以为，他们有权利议会更多地参与到进程之中。

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.
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。

In effect, Mrs May has now set the terms of Brexit as either hard or chaotic.
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.
第五十条一旦通过，脱欧将会马上变成实质性的问题。

Trading arrangements, a new migration regime, the future of regulation, security and defence co-operation, money and much else will be on the table.
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。

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.
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.
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。

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.”
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”。

Sadly, it was ever thus.
悲哀的是，这已经是普遍的想法了。