網路城邦
回本城市首頁 打開聯合報 看見紐約時報
市長:AL  副市長:
加入本城市推薦本城市加入我的最愛訂閱最新文章
udn城市文學創作其他【打開聯合報 看見紐約時報】城市/討論區/
討論區Europe 字體:
上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
新聞對照: 英若脫歐 恐陷漫長政治亂局
 瀏覽115|回應0推薦0

kkhsu
等級:8
留言加入好友

If Britain Favors ‘Brexit,’ Changes Will Come Slowly
By STEPHEN CASTLE

LONDON — If Britain wakes up on Friday morning to the news that it has voted itself out of the European Union, about the only thing that everyone is sure to agree on is that the nation will face a protracted political and legal mess.

For all the drama the moment would bring, there would be no instant change. European Union citizens could still come to Britain to live and work without a visa. Trade with the single market would continue unimpeded. Brussels would continue to regulate bananas.

Instead, the process of decoupling would officially begin only when the British government chooses to invoke a previously unused provision of the bloc’s governing treaty, known as Article 50, that sets out the basics of the withdrawal process.

The most critical element of Article 50 is that, once invoked, it sets a two-year deadline for a negotiated departure. Beyond that, no one really knows how the process would work, since no country has ever left the European Union.

Moreover, it is up to the British government when to invoke Article 50, and it is not entirely clear whether Prime Minister David Cameron, who has led the campaign to stay, would stick to his stated plan to invoke it immediately if the country votes to leave.

In legal terms, the British government is not even bound by the result of Thursday’s referendum, which is generally considered a tossup at this point. In a report for the Constitution Society, Richard Gordon and Rowena Moffat said, “The government could, in strict law, choose to ignore it.”

Most members of Parliament — including the majority of the governing Conservatives in the House of Commons and nearly all of the opposition Labour Party — are also opposed to leaving the bloc, though Parliament would probably not get a direct vote on whether or when to invoke Article 50.

Politically, however, it would be almost impossible to overlook the outcome of the first plebiscite on Britain’s place in Europe in 41 years. “Given the constitutional significance of the issue at stake,” the report’s authors say, “it is inconceivable that the government could choose not to be bound by the result.”

In fact, one of the few certainties about a vote in favor of Britain leaving the European Union — a Brexit — is that initially, at least, it will plunge capitals on both sides of the English Channel, but in Britain in particular, into complex negotiations and political jockeying that could last for years.

Despite Mr. Cameron’s plans to invoke Article 50 swiftly after the vote, he would face pressure to delay starting the two-year clock from those in his party who favor leaving.

Their thinking is that before starting the clock, Britain should start informally negotiating a new trade deal with the European Union in tandem with the terms of Britain’s departure from the bloc. They suggest that Britain would lose considerable leverage in negotiating a new trade deal once it was outside the bloc, and that it could get a better trade deal as part of a negotiation that encompasses all aspects of the new cross-channel relationship.

Once the two-year Article 50 term expires, Britain would be outside the single European market for services and become subject to possible tariffs on goods. The pro-departure camp does not want to negotiate a new trade pact with that clock ticking.

But while Britain might want to move slowly to leave Europe, countries like France and Germany would want to move swiftly, to reduce Britain’s leverage. They can also be expected to take no prisoners in the negotiations, in an effort to limit political contagion by making a tough example of Britain for other member states.

Yet there appears to be no mechanism to force Britain to invoke Article 50 and set the two-year clock running.

Mr. Cameron’s assurances that he would do so in the event of a Brexit vote may not count for much, in that he may not survive such an outcome. Were he to quit, it would take the Conservative Party several weeks at least to select a successor. If he loses the referendum but decides to try to remain prime minister, as he has said he would, Britain could be consumed by political maneuvering for weeks or months, postponing a decision on how to proceed.

“We don’t know who’s going to be in charge,” said Anand Menon, professor of European politics and foreign affairs at King’s College London. “The uncertainty extends to who’s going to be leading this show.”

Some Brexit supporters suggest that they could negotiate a departure without using Article 50. By contrast, in Brussels, there is discussion of somehow forcing the British to invoke it. Most legal experts say it would be impossible to avoid.

Whatever Conservative government emerges would have to decide what kind of relationship to seek with the European Union, and get the British Parliament on its side for eventual ratification of a new arrangement covering trade and immigration, among other issues.

The problem is, fewer than a third of the current Parliament members support leaving the bloc. Stephen Kinnock, an opposition Labour Party lawmaker, has said lawmakers might press for a relationship like Norway has with the European Union — outside the bloc but still having access to its single market.

However, Norway not only pays into the bloc but also accepts the free movement of workers — two of the biggest and most emotional arguments Brexit supporters have made against membership in the European Union.

Analysts say the arguments in Parliament could become so polarized that the government might be forced to seek new elections. But that would require changing a recently passed law on elections, and even then a new Parliament might still be hopelessly divided.

Roger Liddle, a pro-European Union member of the House of Lords and a chairman of the Policy Network research institute, said, “Even if, as is likely, within weeks of a ‘leave’ vote we would have a new Brexit government with a new prime minister, which may be reinforced by a general election victory within six to nine months, it is very unlikely that a majority in either House of Parliament could be found for a credible leave option.”

A vote to leave the bloc would put Britain in a worse position to curb European migration until it actually departed. In February Mr. Cameron negotiated limits on welfare payments as a disincentive to some European migrants, but this concession is conditional on a vote to remain. Not only would this deal be moot in the event of a Brexit vote, but European citizens might race to enter Britain before the gates are closed.

Chris Grayling, a cabinet minister campaigning to leave the bloc, has proposed quick legislation to end the right of free movement before Britain leaves formally, something that would put Britain in breach of European Union law.

While European law would be hard to enforce on a country in the bloc’s departure lounge, it is unclear whether British lawmakers would approve such a legally contentious step in any case.

Even if they did, that would complicate exit negotiations and could provoke retaliatory measures from Continental Europe.

If a deal can be reached within the two years, it may need to be ratified in all 28 member nations and perhaps approved by the Parliament in Scotland, where all major parties want to remain in the bloc.

Some of those not normally given to hyperbole have deep misgivings about what could go wrong while disentangling Britain from four decades of European integration.

“The long-term ghastliness of the legal complications is almost unimaginable,” Sir David Edward, a former judge at the European Court of Justice and professor emeritus at Edinburgh University, told a committee of the House of Lords.

Professor Menon said he worries most about the political leadership if Britain leaves: “Who’s providing it, who has the authority to do anything, and whether political contagion spreads to our European partners, which then leads to a hideous, ugly standoff before the negotiations have even started.”

英若脫歐 恐陷漫長政治亂局

紐約時報報導,英國人廿四日早上一覺醒來,若得知公投結果是英國離歐盟,這時唯一能確定的是,英國將面臨漫長的政治和法律混亂局面,歐過程可能拖上好幾年

英國歐的這一刻將驚天動地,但當下什麼都不會改變。歐盟國家公民仍可以不需要簽證就進入英國生活和工作,英國與歐盟單一市場的貿易仍暢通無阻。

只有在英國政府行使里斯本條約第五十條後,英國離歐盟的程序才正式動,此一條款規定退出歐盟的基本程序,其中最重要的是設定協商期限為兩年,除此之外,沒人知道歐程序如何運作,因為過去沒有會員國離開歐盟。

至於英國政府何時行使第五十條,由英國政府決定,目前不清楚領導「留歐」陣營的首相卡麥隆是否會遵守他的承諾,在公投後立刻行使第五十條。

在法律上,英國政府不受廿三日公投結果的約束,政府可以賴帳。大多數國會議員,包括執政黨保守黨的多數議員及在野黨工黨的幾乎全體議員,都反對歐,不過國會可能不會直接表決是否行使第五十條或何時行使。

不過,在政治上,這是英國四十一年來首度針對英國在歐盟的地位進行公投,政府不可能賴帳。

公投決定歐後,倫敦和布魯塞爾將陷入複雜的協商和政治角力,可能持續多年。儘管卡麥隆計畫在公投後立刻行使第五十條,他將面臨黨「留歐派」要求他延後動兩年協商時鐘的壓力。

他們認為在動協商時鐘前,英國應先與歐盟非正式協商新的貿易協定。第五十條的兩年協商期限結束後,英國輸往歐洲商品可能課徵關。「留歐派」不希望在兩年協商期限開始計時後,再與歐盟談新貿易協定,英國將喪失一些籌碼。

英國也許希望慢慢歐,但法國和德國會希望快速進行,以降低英國的籌碼。他們也希望不要被協商困住,讓英國接受嚴苛條件,以避免骨牌效應。但歐盟無法強迫英國行使第五十條。

而且卡麥隆對公投結果的保證可能不算數,公投若決定歐,他可能被迫下台,保守黨將選出新首相。但卡麥隆曾即使公投決定歐,他會想辦法留任,英可能陷入長期政治鬥爭,延後歐程序

原文參照:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/world/europe/brexit-consequences.html

VideoBritish Politicians Campaign Over ‘Brexit’
British politicians from both sides of the issue rallied on Wednesday for either staying or leaving the European Union ahead of a referendum vote set for Thursday. Here’s what they think.

http://nyti.ms/28WPxRd

2016-06-24.聯合報.A6.國際.編譯田思怡


回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘

引用
引用網址:http://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=50132&aid=5722020