英國不應成爲規則的被動接受者
An astute American foresaw Britain’s troubles in Europe long before a common market was a mere glint in the eye of Jean Monnet. Edward Stettinius, then US secretary of state, told President Franklin Roosevelt as the second world war drew towards a close in 1944, that the British would always be uncomfortable in any club that they did not lead.
早在歐洲共同市場只是讓莫內(Jean Monnet)眼中的一抹閃光很久之前，一位聰明的美國人就預見到了英國在歐洲的困境。1944年，在二戰即將步入尾聲時，當時的美國國務卿愛德華斯特提紐斯(Edward Stettinius)告訴美國總統富蘭克林圠斯福(Franklin Roosevelt)，英國在任何一個自己不佔據領導地位的俱樂部裏永遠都是不舒服的。
There are many explanations for the singularity of Britain’s view of its own continent, among them history, geography, political culture and self-image. It really does matter that 1,000 years have passed since the country was last invaded and that the chamber of the House of Commons is laid out for combat rather than consensus. The original sin as far as the EU is concerned, though, was to come late to an organisation in which leadership had already been claimed by Paris and Bonn.
英國對自己所處大陸的觀點頗爲奇特，這有很多原因，包括歷史、地理、政治、文化和自我形象。自從英國上一次遭到入侵已經過去1000年了，英國下議院的設計是爲了對抗而非達成共識，這些事實都很重要。然而，就歐盟(EU)而言，英國的原罪在於，加入這個組織太晚，領導權已被法國和德國奪走了。
Britain’s European question is as much about temperament as about the dastardly designs of those on the other side of the Channel. Standing aside in 1957 from the founding Treaty of Rome, before scurrying a few years later to climb aboard, spoke to a frame of mind that ricochets between innate superiority and recurring insecurity.
英國的歐洲問題既與脾性有關，也與英吉利海峽對岸國家的卑鄙設計有關。1957年，英國對歐洲共同市場的創始條約《羅馬條約》(Treaty of Rome)持觀望態度，幾年後又急忙加入，這說明了一種心態：英國搖擺於天生的優越感與重複出現的不安全感之間。
Britain may be convinced it does not need the EU, but history recalls it must not allow its neighbours to conspire against it. So successive governments have rarely ventured more than halfway in — an arrangement formalised in opt-outs from the euro and the Schengen frontier-free zone.
英國可能認爲，它不需要歐盟，但歷史提醒英國，不能讓鄰國合謀反對英國。因此，歷屆英國政府往往對歐洲共同市場半推半就：這種安排正式體現在英國選擇不加入歐元區和申根區。
The psychodrama is unlikely to be front and centre in the referendum on EU membership. Modern campaigning, we are told, is about pocketbook issues. Jobs, growth and living standards take precedence over grand visions. This, I think, is a mistake. Britain’s relationship with Europe stirs deep-rooted emotions and impulses.
在就英國的歐盟成員國身份舉行的公投中，這種心態不太可能唱主角。我們知道，現代運動關乎財政問題。就業、增長和生活標準蓋過了遠大理想。我認爲，這是個錯誤。英國與歐洲的關係會攪動深層次的情緒和脈搏。
The “outs” have it that plucky Britain is better off striking out alone than bending to the will of Brussels. If anyone is nervous about being excluded, the sceptics add, the UK will get a good deal if the vote is to leave. Hmmm. David Cameron, prime minister, is rehearsing the dubious claim that renegotiation has secured “the best of both worlds” — a place at the table along with an exemption from all that stuff it does not like.
“退歐派”人士認爲，勇敢的英國單打獨鬥要好於向歐盟的意志屈服。懷疑派補充稱，如果有人對自己受到排斥感到擔心，那麼如果公投結果是脫歐，英國將獲得一筆不錯的買賣。英國首相戴維慍蕓倫(David Cameron)正默誦下面這種值得懷疑的說法：重新談判會達到“兩全其美”的結果——既在議事桌上獲得一席之地，又免除所有英國不喜歡的責任。
Valiant souls such as the Conservative Kenneth Clarke are in a minority even among pro-Europeans in recalling that the Union is an essential pillar of peace and security. For the most part such sentiments are seen as relics of the cold war. Today’s deracinated political discourse demands that British pro-Europeans instead sing the praises of, say, the single market in mobile telephony. They are the ones living in the past. Britain is neither safe nor secure. Russian revanchism, Islamist terrorism, and surging migration — these are not threats susceptible to national resolution.
在回想起歐盟是和平與安全的重要支柱方面，即便在支持歐盟的人士中，保守黨人肯尼斯克拉克(Kenneth Clarke)等勇敢人士也屬於少數派。這種觀點基本上被視爲冷戰的殘留。如今的脫歐政治言論要求支持歐盟的英國人讚頌單一移動通訊市場。他們生活在過去。英國現在既不安全也沒有保障。俄羅斯的復仇主義、伊斯蘭的恐怖主義以及日益增加的移民，這些威脅不是憑一國之力可以解決的。
The UK carries considerable clout: economic, diplomatic, cultural and military. It also confronts an ineluctable strategic fact. Decisions taken by Germany, France, Italy and the rest, whether about hard security, energy supply, climate change, economic management or financial regulation, have an impact on Britain’s national interest. The in-out choice is one between being a maker or a taker of the rules.
英國有着巨大影響力：經濟、外交、文化和軍事。英國還面臨着無法逃避的戰略現實。德國、法國、意大利和其他國家做出的決定會對英國的國家利益造成影響，不管是硬安全、能源供應、氣候變化、經濟管理還是金融監管。選擇留在歐盟還是退出歐盟，就是決定是要成爲規則的制定者還是接受者。
For now, the “ins” are in the grip of a certain complacency. Buoyed by largely favourable polls you hear them whisper that the die is cast. For all the inevitable brouhaha of the coming campaign (everyone expects a deal next month in Brussels to be followed by a referendum in June), the British will play it safe. They will opt, albeit with a certain sullenness, for the status quo rather than take a leap into the unknown.
目前，“留歐派”陷入了某種自滿情緒。受到基本有利的民意測驗的提振，你會聽到他們小聲說木已成舟。儘管即將到來的公投將不可避免地出現騷動（所有人都預計歐盟於下月達成協議，然後英國在6月舉行公投），英國人將謹慎行事。儘管情緒有些低沉，但他們將選擇維持現狀，而不是踏入未知境地。
The pro-Europeans have a point. The glaring weakness of the out campaign is the absence of any credible alternative. The sceptics are profoundly divided on the extent to which Britain should cut itself loose. Some look to the Norwegian or Swiss example — outside but playing by the single market rules. Others see the inherent absurdity of going to the trouble of leaving and then signing up again for all the rules. Singapore, they say, is a better model.
“留歐派”是有道理的。脫歐運動的明顯弱點在於沒有提出任何可信的替代方案。懷疑派對於英國應獲取多大程度的自由分歧嚴重。一些人考慮像挪威或瑞士那樣：不加入歐盟但遵守單一市場規則。還有一些人認爲，如此大費周章地退出歐盟、然後又遵守所有歐盟規則，從根本上就很荒唐。他們說，新加坡的模式更好。
Mr Clarke calls the sceptics old-fashioned rightwing nationalists, and there is much of that tradition among the Tory sceptics and in Nigel Farage’s UK Independence party. But Europe is an issue on which far right and far left meet. Jeremy Corbyn, the hard-left opposition Labour party leader, is as hostile to the EU as any rightwing populist. He is kept quiet only by of the threat of open civil war in his own party.
克拉克將懷疑派稱爲舊式的右翼民族主義者，保守黨懷疑派人士以及奈傑爾法拉奇(Nigel Farage)領導的英國獨立黨(UKIP)在很大程度上具有這種傳統。但極右翼和極左翼人士在歐洲問題上意見相合。反對黨工黨(Labour party)的極左翼領導人傑裏米科爾賓(Jeremy Corbyn)對歐盟的敵意與右翼民粹主義分子一樣深。他保持緘默的原因僅僅是害怕他所在政黨爆發公開內戰。
What the pro-Europeans miss is the powerful emotional pull of the “outs”. Their appeal is to a mood that rejects the political elites, demonises big business and banking, and casts Brussels as the agent of unfettered globalisation and uncontrolled migration. In truth, there is no guarantee that when the British come to cast their ballots that they will prefer cold economic logic to the siren call of national self-discovery.
留歐派忽視了退歐派的強大情感力量。退歐派迎合了這種情緒：反對政治精英，將大企業和銀行業妖魔化，並把歐盟描繪爲不受約束的全球化和不受控制的移民的代理人。實際上，誰也無法保證，英國人在公投時會喜歡冷冰冰的經濟邏輯，勝過國家自我發現的誘人召喚。
Stettinius offered his observation as Britain entered the twilight of empire. His concern was that Britain would struggle to adjust to the emerging world of two superpowers. He did not imagine that, seven decades later, Britain would still be vexed by an innate reluctance to accept anything much less than leadership. Mr Cameron says the referendum will settle the matter. He is mistaken. Britain’s European question is about a lot more than membership of the EU.
在英國走向帝國的黃昏時，斯特提紐斯提出了他的觀點。他擔心，英國將難以適應這個存在兩個超級大國的新世界。他不會想到，70年後，英國仍會因爲天生不願接受遠遠低於領導者的地位而感到煩惱。卡梅倫表示，公投將解決這個問題。他說錯了。英國的歐洲問題遠遠不僅僅是關於歐盟成員國身份。
