評論
打印
But peers also made clear that they will eventually back down and let an unamended bill become law in the first half of March.
但是貴族們也明白他們最后得做出讓步，并且在3月上旬通過未經(jīng)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.
這樣梅夫人就可以提前援引《里斯本條約》第五十條，從而避免擾亂3月25日歐盟在羅馬舉行的60周年慶典，因為她已經(jīng)表示不會出席這個慶典。
The real problem with the debate was its focus on procedure, not substance.
辯論的實質問題在于程序上而非內容上。
Peers are doubtless right to call for closer parliamentary involvement.
毫無以為，他們有權利議會更多地參與到進程之中。
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.
他們同樣有權利反對梅夫人遞交給國會的計劃，這是她與前外交官來自Kinlochard的科爾勛爵（人們把他稱為里斯本第50條法令的起草者）商討后得出的所謂霍布森的選擇（又稱為別無選擇的做法）：糟糕的脫歐計劃，或者對他來說，根本就算不上計劃。
In effect, Mrs May has now set the terms of Brexit as either hard or chaotic.
事實上，梅夫人現(xiàn)在設立的關于脫歐具體條款是難以實現(xiàn)和無比混亂的。
Yet once Article 50 is invoked, the argument over Brexit will instantly become substantive.
第五十條一旦通過，脫歐將會馬上變成實質性的問題。
Trading arrangements, a new migration regime, the future of regulation, security and defence co-operation, money and much else will be on the table.
那么貿(mào)易協(xié)定、新的移民機制、未來的監(jiān)管、安全防務合作、貨幣還有其他問題都亟待解決。
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.
前歐盟專員希爾在辯論中注意到，重要的不是英國政府的需求，而是其他的27個國家能提供給英國什么，因為談判主導權掌握在其他的27各國家手中。
The big risk is that the eventual result will be good neither for Britain nor for the EU.
英國脫歐后的一大風險就是，最終的所有結果都不利于英國和歐盟的發(fā)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.”
查爾斯-格蘭特提到了歐洲改革中心（智囊團）的一篇新文章，這是因為“英國和其他27個國家都注重政治和原則而不是經(jīng)濟最優(yōu)結果”。
Sadly, it was ever thus.
悲哀的是，這已經(jīng)是普遍的想法了。
