今年6月的脱欧公投以52比48的比率获得通过后，首相卡梅伦随即表示辞职。
不久，保守党新党魁特蕾莎·梅成功入主唐宁街10号府邸，成为英国新首相，就职后的首要工作之一就是处理英国脱欧事宜。
然而，11月3日，英国高等法院裁判认定只有经议会批准，英国政府才可启动脱欧程序。判决一出，英镑汇率一扫脱欧公投后的颓废态势而应声大涨。
留欧派似乎又看到了希望，但英国政府对此却并不满意。代表政府一方的首相特蕾莎·梅表示，英国政府已经着手提出上诉，该案预计在下个月由英国最高法院开庭二审。
针对脱欧上诉，广大看官有几大疑问
1.Does this mean that now we may not be allowed to leave the EU?
这是否意味着我们可能不被允许脱欧？
The court ruling does not mean the end of Brexit.
最高法院的裁决并不意味着脱欧进程的中止。
The case was about the government's right to trigger the formal two-year process of leaving the EU without there being a vote in Parliament.
这个案件的中心问题是政府是否有权力在未经议会同意的前提下，启动正常期限为两年的脱欧进程。
The government is going to appeal against the decision, but, as things stand, the ruling means MPs and lords will have to give their go-ahead before Prime Minister Theresa May starts her negotiations on the UK's exit from the European Union.
政府准备对这个判决提出上诉，但是全民投票的结果木已成舟，这个裁决意味着下院和大法官将不得不在首相启动脱欧谈判前做出放行的决定。
Theoretically, they could decide not to give the go-ahead - but, in practice, that is seen as highly unlikely given that a majority of people who voted in the June referendum voted for the UK to leave the EU.
理论上，他们也有权利决定不予放行，但是实际上，考虑到六月份的全民公投中的多数赞成票，不予放行或许是不可能的。
2.What legal argument will the government use next month?
政府在下个月开庭中会采用什么法律论据？
We do not know yet, but it may try to repeat the argument that its prerogative powers allow it to trigger Article 50 because that in itself does not mean an immediate change to UK citizens' EU rights.
我们尚不知道，但是他可能重复这个论据，就是说政府的优先投票权允许它启动第五十条条款，因为条款本身并不意味着迅速改变英国公民的欧盟权利。
3.What is the legal situation on whether Parliament needs to pass a legislative act in order to trigger Article 50 as distinct from just taking a vote?
关于国会是否需要通过立法行为以启动第五十条，不同于只是投票？
Paragraph 13 of the ruling essentially states that a parliamentary motion is not enough to satisfy the terms of Brexit.
UK membership is bound not in prerogative power, but in the 1972 EU Communities Act, and therefore needs primary legislation to be taken away.
在英国，英国成员(英格兰，苏格兰，威尔士和北爱尔兰)的优先投票权不受限制，但是在1972年的欧共体法案中却受约束，所以需要提前取消一级立法。.(背景知识 早在1973年英国加入欧盟前身欧洲共同体的前一年，英国议会即通过了《1972欧洲共同体法案》，该法案允许英国加入欧洲共同体，同时认可了欧洲共同体法律在英国国内的效力，法案规定英国应通过一级立法实现欧洲共同体法律的国内效力。)
4.Was the referendum result mandatory or advisory?公民投票的结果是强制性的还是顾问性的？
The EU referendum was advisory - as was discussed in the court ruling on Thursday.欧盟公投只是咨询顾问性的。
It points to the "basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy" in the UK, which "led to the conclusion that a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question".
它指出了英国基本的宪法准则，即议会主权和代议制民主，这解释了基于任何话题的全民公投于立法者而言，都只具有建议作用,除非在公投法案中有明确相反的用语。
(背景知识 英国政府的脱欧决定是经过英国全民公投决定的，举行公投的决定也规定在由议会制定的《2015欧盟全民公投法案》。)
"No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act," it adds.
而《2015欧盟全民公投法案》显然没有此种用语。
5.Could the case end up being decided at the European Court of Justice?
该案会否最后于欧洲法院结束审判？
Possibly, but it would be surprising if it was, according to Joshua Rozenberg, because the case is about the UK's constitutional requirements, not EU law.不排除这种可能性。但是，Joshua Rozenberg 表示，考虑到该案与英国宪法的必要性条件相关，并不属于欧盟法律范畴，交由欧盟法律处理是令人吃惊的。
作者系一枚普通的英语老师，生活中充斥着大量的生词和海量的乐趣。期待与你分享我的些许经历，点滴感受，也希望你与我一样，永远与生活结不解之缘。
简书账号 Domino123
