And we have to deploy more naval resources in the Mediterranean and spend more on Europe’s border security.	我们必须在地中海部署更多的海军资源，并增加用于欧洲边境安全的经费。


Such an effort would be in the interest of everyone, not least the poor in Africa and West Asia.	这项工作符合所有人的利益，尤其是非洲和西亚的穷人。


As Cameron surveys the broken political crockery at the end of June, taking responsibility for such an effort – at the helm of a country that is an integral part of the EU – would be very much in his interest as well.	在卡梅伦以欧盟成员国的掌舵人身份调查6月底四分五裂的政治制度时，承担起这项工作的责任同样能为他带来好处。


Is Europe Worth the Effort?	值得为欧洲努力吗？


PARIS – When the United Kingdom joined the then-European Economic Community in 1973, it was at the rearguard of European integration.	巴黎—1973年，当英国加入当时的欧洲经济共同体时，它是欧洲一体化的殿军。


The question raised by the UK’s upcoming referendum on continued European Union membership is whether Britain is now at the forefront of Europe’s disintegration.	即将举行的英国是否保留欧盟成员资格的全民公决所提出的问题则是现在的英国是否是欧洲解体的先锋。


The issue has little to do with the insignificant accord that Prime Minister David Cameron recently reached with his EU colleagues.	这一问题与英国首相卡梅伦最近与其欧盟同侪所达成的无关紧要的协议没有什么关系。


Indeed, it is hard to believe that this agreement will determine Britain’s fateful choice in June.	事实上，难以置信这一协议会左右6月的英国命运选择。


The fundamental issue is whether EU membership still yields large enough benefits to outweigh the loss of sovereignty that it entails.	根本问题是欧盟成员资格是否仍然能够产生足够多的利益，压倒其所隐含的主权损失。


This is not a matter for discussion in Britain only.	这不仅仅是英国需要讨论的问题。


For many in the EU, however, it is a very difficult question to ask, because Europe remains emotionally loaded.	但是，对于许多欧盟人来说，这是一个难以启齿的问题，因为欧洲仍然充满着感情色彩。


Only in Britain could a cabinet minister from the same party that brought the country into the EU call for exiting it.	只有在英国，才会发生来自将它带进欧盟的政党的内阁部长要求离开欧盟的情况。


No mainstream German, French, or Spanish politician would dare discuss the matter openly, let alone advocate divorce.	主流德国、法国或西班牙政客都没有胆子公开谈论这一问题，更不用说鼓吹脱离欧盟了。


But the question cannot be ignored.	但这一问题不容忽视。


In most EU countries, large segments of public opinion are dissatisfied with the Union and increasingly sympathetic to nationalistic appeals.	在大部分欧盟国家，很多人对联盟表示不满，越来越认同民族主义诉求。


In response, many politicians pay lip service to Europe while emphasizing purely national solutions.	因此，许多政客的反应是口头上支持欧洲，实际上只注重国家方案。


This inconsistent – and often simply cynical – stance has mired Europe in an unhappy equilibrium: It cannot move backward, it cannot move forward, and it satisfies no one.	这一不一致——并且常常相当犬儒主义——的立场让欧洲陷入了一个令人不快的均衡：它不能后退，也无法前进，不能令任何人满意。


One hopes that the fierce EU membership debate, now that it has begun, will be honest enough for everyone to learn from it.	人们希望，激烈的欧盟成员资格争论既然已经开始，那就但愿它是诚实的，能让所有人汲取教训。


In particular, the economic benefits of EU membership are a matter for serious discussion.	特别是，欧盟成员资格的经济利益是值得严肃讨论的话题。


Economists describe regional integration as a tradeoff between economies of scale and the diversity of preferences.	经济学家将地区一体化描述为规模经济和偏好多样性之间的权衡。


By joining, countries gain efficiency and influence, at the cost of having to settle on policies that do not exactly match their choices.	加入一体化进程的国家获得效率和影响力，代价则是在并不十分匹配于它们的选择上做出侦测妥协。


For example, businesses get access to a larger market, and consumers benefit from lower prices, but regulations are less attuned to their liking.	比如，企业得以进入更大的市场，消费者享受到更低的价格，但监管不再那么遂自己的意。


It is like sharing an apartment: you reduce your costs, but you have to adapt to your roommates’ habits.	这就像是分享公寓：你降低了成本，但必须适应室友的习惯。


In Europe, preferences today are arguably much less dissimilar than they were a few decades ago.	在欧洲，偏好的多样性比几十年前降低了不少。


Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former French President François Mitterrand were much further apart ideologically than their current successors.	英国前首相撒切尔夫人和法国前总统密特朗的意识形态分歧远远大于他们的现任继任者。


True, the British are still more inclined toward free markets than the French, but the gap between them has become much narrower.	诚然，英国人仍然比法国人更倾向于自由市场，但他们之间的差异已经小了很多。


There is no factual basis for claiming that we have become unhappier roommates since the 1980s.	认为20世纪80年代以来我们是越来越看不惯对方的室友是与事实不符的。


Nor has the EU ventured into domains where it produces no value added.	欧盟也没有冒险进入不产生增加值的领域。


The first Cameron government launched a review of EU competences in 2012 to determine which lie with the EU and which with the UK.	第一任卡梅伦政府在2012年进行了一次欧盟资格评估，以确定哪些有利于欧盟，哪些有利于英国。


A comprehensive public consultation and 32 thorough reports later, the audit has not resulted in any request for significant competence repatriation.	在进行了全面的公共协商和32次详细报告后，评估结果表明完全没有重要理由应该收回成员资格。


Perhaps for this reason, Brexit advocates often focus on the diminishing benefits of regional integration and claim that Britain would be much better off playing its cards alone.	也许是出于这个原因，英国退出的支持者常常把重点放在地区一体化收益的日益递减上，提出英国自己玩自己的���处要大得多。


Why bother negotiating with continental partners, when the UK can trade with the whole world?	当英国可以与全世界做贸易时，为什么还要和欧洲大陆伙伴谈判？


Aren’t small, open economies like Singapore thriving?	新加坡这样的小型开放经济不是活得风生水起吗？


There are serious objections to this argument.	对于这一论点，有一些严肃的反对理由。


For starters, free trade suffices for selling shirts, but trade in services requires detailed legislation and institutions (such as sector-specific authorities) to enforce it.	首先，自由贸易有利于卖衬衫，但服务贸易牵涉到执行的立法和机构（如行业监管当局）。


Absent a comprehensive regulatory apparatus, financial or health-care services, among others, cannot be traded.	缺少全面的监管规则的话，金融或医疗服务（以及其他）就无法贸易。


So the notion that all that is needed is to eliminate tariffs and bureaucratic red tape is pure fiction.	因此，需要的只是消除关税和官样文章的概念完全站不住脚。


The UK, which is strong in services, needs the institutional framework of the EU single market much more than, say, Poland, which is stronger in goods.	长于服务业的英国需要欧盟单一市场的机构框架远甚于长于制造业的（比如）波兰。


Second, the global trading framework is itself in serious trouble.	其次，全球贸易框架本身麻烦重重。


The Uruguay Round, the latest global trade agreement, was completed in 1994.	最新全球贸易协议乌拉圭回合完成于1994年。


Its putative successor, the Doha Development Round, has not been completed and probably never will be.	其公认的后续协议，即多哈发展回合，至今认为结束，可能永远都不会有终点。


Global trade increasingly relies on bilateral or regional arrangements.	全球贸易日益依赖双边或地区协议。


According to the World Trade Organization, 267 such agreements are in force, including 49 involving the EU.	据世界贸易组织的数据，目前由267个类似协议已经生效，其中49个包括欧盟。


Contrary to popular perception, globalization has not made regional arrangements irrelevant; on the contrary, it largely relies on them.	与流行的感觉相反，全球化并没有让地区安排变得无关紧要，相反，全球化主要依赖的正是地区安排。


Furthermore, globalization is in fact fragile – and increasingly so.	此外，事实上全球化十分脆弱——并且日甚一日。


American leadership buttressed it in the decades after World War II; but the United States no longer regards itself as the guardian of multilateral rules.	二战战后几十年中，美国的领导支持着全球化； 但美国本身已不再是多边规则的捍卫者。


The US effort to create two mega-regional free-trade zones – the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, neither of which includes China – is indicative of America’s priorities.	美国试图打造两个大型地区自由贸易区——跨太平洋合作伙伴关系和跨大西洋贸易和投资伙伴关系，两者均不包括中国——这彰显出美国的重点。


And the other big players, from China to the commodity producers, are not shy about wielding their economic power.	其他主要行动方，从中国到大宗商品生产国，也不耻于动用经济实力。


For all its weaknesses, the EU is a big economic player that participates in shaping the world around it.	欧盟固然弱点重重，但它仍然是决定世界形势的主要经济行动方。


As a standard-setter, a negotiator, and a rule enforcer, it has considerably more influence than its opponents recognize.	作为标准制定者、谈判者和规则执行者，欧盟的影响力远远大于它的反对者的认识。


Because it is itself based on rules, it is the strongest champion of rules-based economic interdependence.	欧盟本身便是基于规则而成立，因此它是基于规则的经济互相依存的最大支持者。


For these reasons alone, to dispense with it would be an adventurous gamble.	光是出于这些原因，脱离欧盟就必然是非常冒险的赌注。


If rational arguments do not support leaving the EU, why has the question arisen?	既然理性不支持脱离欧盟，为什么还会出现这个问题？


In part, it is because the EU has disappointed.	部分原因在于欧盟感到沮丧。


But this is an argument for reforming it, rather than leaving it.	但这应该改革欧盟的理由，而不是离开它的理由。


In part, it is because transnational democracy has not delivered.	部分原因在于没有实现跨国民主。


But the answer is not to give up on it, but to make it work.	但解决之道不是放弃，而是让民主起作用。


In part, it is because the emotional glue binding Europe together has dried up.	部分原因在于将欧洲凝聚在一起的情感纽带不再。


But this a reason to make change, not to pander to parochialism.	但这是做出变革的理由，而不是回归狭隘的理由。


The World’s Ins and Outs	世界的进和退


LONDON – As the United Kingdom’s debate about whether to withdraw from the European Union has heated up, “in” and “out” have come to define the stark choice facing voters in next week’s “Brexit” referendum.	伦敦——随着英国退欧辩论的日渐升级，“留欧”和“退欧”已经成为下周举行英国退欧公投所面临的严峻选择。


The British are not alone: the world is increasingly divided between the mentalities underpinning support for the “Leave” and “Remain” campaigns.	面临这种状况的并非只有英国：世界各国的心态都在支持“退出”和“留下”的宣传攻势中日趋分化。


Do citizens and their leaders want to work with others toward greater security and prosperity, or do they think that they are better served by isolating themselves behind real or virtual walls?	民众及其领袖是愿意相信合作将会带来更多的安全与繁荣，还是认定躲在有形或虚拟的高墙之后就能让自己的生活变得更好？


Those with an “out” mindset view the world through a Hobbesian lens, seeing everywhere the danger of people with unregulated passions, driven to do them harm.	秉持“退出”心态的人通过霍布斯镜头观察世界，目睹到处都是被某种力量推动要对他们造成损害的失控的热情。


Only an omnipotent Leviathan can ensure order and security.	只有无所不能的庞然大物才能保障安全和秩序。


This is essentially the worldview – gradations of extremism notwithstanding – of Austria’s Freedom Party, Greece’s Golden Dawn, the UK Independence Party, Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party, and similar forces throughout Europe and the West, not to mention the world’s autocracies and outright dictatorships.	这其实就是奥地利自由党、希腊金色黎明、英国独立党、匈牙利执政的青年民主党以及遍布欧洲和西方世界的类似势力、更不要说全世界专制和赤裸裸的独裁者所秉承的世界观（虽然极端主义的层次各不相同）。


Theirs is a politics of fear and dog-whistle incitement of the extremist forces that exist in every society.	恐怖政治及存在于所有社会的极端主义势力是他们的代表。


And, as we’ve seen in both the UK’s Brexit debate and the United States’ presidential election campaign, neither facts nor reason will dissuade voters with an “out” mindset.	而且，就像我们在英国退欧辩论和美国总统竞选活动中所目睹的那样，无论是事实还是理性都不能阻止坚决想要“退出”的投票者。


As the Nobel laureate economist Daniel Kahneman recently observed of Britain’s Leave camp, “The arguments look odd: they look short-term and based on irritation and anger.”	诺贝尔经济学奖得主丹尼尔·卡尼曼最近对英国退欧阵营的观察结果是，“他们的理由看起来非常奇怪：主要是基于刺激和愤怒所作出的短期决策。


And yet they work.	”但这招却可以充分发挥效果。


In the US presidential election, the choice between Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, and her Republican counterpart, Donald Trump, reflects an unambiguous battle between “in” and “out.”	在美国总统大选中，选择假定民主党提名人希拉里·克林顿及其共和党对手唐纳德·特朗普反映出“留下”和“退出”之间明白无误的战斗。


In response to the recent mass shooting at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, Trump boasted that he had been right all along about the threat posed by “radical Islamic terrorism.”	在回应不久前奥兰多一家同性恋夜总会发生的大规模枪击事件时，特朗普吹嘘自己在“极端伊斯兰恐怖主义”造成的威胁方面一直是对的。


Clinton, by contrast, offered words of support – in English and Spanish – to the victims, and focused on the community and on the need for gun control.	而克林顿则恰恰相反，她用英语和西班牙语在演讲中对受害者表达了支持，并进一步强调社团和枪支管控。


With his xenophobic rhetoric and fondness for despots like Russian President Vladimir Putin (a demagogue who bullies the neighbors he doesn’t invade), Trump epitomizes the “out” mindset: hyperbolic, malicious, pompous, and hostile to all who defy or disagree with him (be it the press, which he berates and tries to block, or judges who preside over his lawsuits).	凭借仇外言论和对俄罗斯总统普京等独裁者（一位欺压甚至入侵其邻国的煽动者）的喜爱，特朗普成为“退出”心态的卓越代表：夸张、恶意、华而不实并对敌视或违抗者充满敌意（不管对方是他严厉指责并试图打压的媒体，还是审理其诉讼的法官都是这样）。


Some senior Republicans, to their credit, have disavowed this Pied Piper’s effort to lead Americans over a cliff of isolation and bigotry.	值得赞扬的是，某些资深共和党人对这种领导美国人走上孤立和偏执悬崖的努力做出了谴责。


But many others, confronted with his steady stream of insults directed at Latinos, Muslims, and women, seem to have walled off their consciences.	但还有许多人在面对他对拉丁裔、穆斯林和女性源源不断的侮辱的时候，似乎已经完全无视自己的良心。


Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, has called Trump’s comments racist, but continues to endorse him.	众议院议长保罗·瑞安将特朗普的评论形容为种族主义，但却继续为其背书。


So does Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and, perhaps most remarkably, John McCain, the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, whose military service Trump denigrated, saying that McCain returned from Vietnam “a war hero” only “because he was captured,” adding, “I like people who weren’t captured.”	参议院多数党领袖麦康奈尔也同样如此，最引人瞩目的或许莫过于2008年共和党总统提名人约翰·麦凯恩，麦凯恩的服役经历曾遭到特朗普的诽谤，特朗普称麦凯恩“英雄般”地从越南凯旋仅仅是“因为他成了俘虏”，并声称“我更喜欢那些没有当俘虏的人。 ”


Clinton, on the other hand, though widely perceived as a foreign-policy “hawk,” is still of the “in” mindset – someone who knows the value of trade, discussion, and compromise.	另一方面，尽管克林顿被外界普遍视为外交政策领域的“鹰派”，但她仍然能够理解“融合”——她理解贸易、谈判和妥协的价值。


She also understands the value of “smart power” – that bombs aren’t always the most valuable tools to use in pursuit of one’s goals.	她还理解“巧实力”——即炸弹并不总是实现目标的最有效的方法。


She would presumably seek to advance the legacy established by President Barack Obama, whose trips to Vietnam, Cuba, and Japan this year focused on moving on from a very difficult past to a new, more hopeful future.	她大概率会继续推动奥巴马总统建立的传统，后者今年来对越南、古巴和日本的访问专注于从困难重重的过去走向充满希望的崭新未来。


This “in” mindset has proved its worth time and again.	这种“融入”的心态一次又一次地证明了其自身的价值。


The world benefits from entering into treaties and embracing cooperative arrangements.	世界从签署条约和接纳合作性安排中获益。


By working in concert with other countries and through global institutions, countries become safer and more prosperous.	通过���其他国家并借助全球机构协力合作，世界各国变得更加安全也更加繁荣。


A victory for the “out” mindset – which seems to regard compassion, truth, and integrity as if they were vestigial limbs – would be Pyrrhic, at best.	而“退出”心态的获胜似乎将同情、真理和统一视之为退化的肢体——就算从最乐观的角度看也是得不偿失的。


Economies would wither, violent conflict would increase, and women, minorities, and journalists would suffer as “out” movements use scare tactics that encourage the extreme among them.	经济将会萎缩、暴力冲突增加、妇女、少数族裔和记者将受累于“退欧”运动利用恐吓策略鼓动他们之中的极端者。


The irony is that all of this is coming at a time when technology companies in Silicon Valley and beyond, long criticized as inward-looking, isolationist, and self-obsessed, are moving as fast as they can to be “in.”	颇具讽刺意味的是，上述问题发生的同时长期被批评为内向、孤立和自我迷恋的硅谷和其他地方的技术型企业正在以最快的速度“融入”。


That’s why Tim Cook in May became Apple’s first CEO to journey to India, and a trip by Microsoft’s CEO, Satya Nadella, followed.	蒂姆·库克今年五月也因此成为苹果公司首任出访印度的首席执行官，微软首席执行官萨蒂亚·纳德拉也紧随其后。


Likewise, Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, devoted considerable effort to learning Mandarin ahead of his trip to China in March.	同样，Facebook首席执行官马克·扎克伯格在3月出访中国前投入了大量的精力来学习普通话。


Companies are investing in building more efficient translation software to make working anywhere, with anyone, simple and seamless.	企业投资于研发更高效的翻译软件，以便实现在任何地点与任何人都能简单无缝的合作。


Multinationals worldwide know that, to grow and thrive, they must look to markets and relationships beyond their own home countries’ borders.	全球跨国公司知道要想实现成长和繁荣，它们就必须对本国境外的市场和关系进行建设。


And what is true of global companies applies to countries: those that are not “in” will inevitably be left out.	适用于全球企业的规律同样适用于国家：那些拒绝“融入”的主体将不可避免地被最终排除。


Britain’s Democratic Failure	英国的民主失败


CAMBRIDGE – The real lunacy of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union was not that British leaders dared to ask their populace to weigh the benefits of membership against the immigration pressures it presents. Rather, it was the absurdly low bar for exit, requiring only a simple majority.	坎布里奇—英国投票决定脱离欧盟的真正疯狂之处不在于英国领导人敢于让老百姓权衡欧元成员资格的好处和由此导致的移民压力，而在于这个退出障碍低得可笑，只需要简单多数。


Given voter turnout of 70%, this meant that the leave campaign won with only 36% of eligible voters backing it.	由于投票率只有70%左右，这意味着脱欧阵营只需要36%的合格选民支持就可以得逞。


This isn’t democracy; it is Russian roulette for republics.	这不是民主； 这是共和政体的俄罗斯轮盘赌。


A decision of enormous consequence – far greater even than amending a country’s constitution (of course, the United Kingdom lacks a written one) – has been made without any appropriate checks and balances.	一个有着巨大后果的决定——远比修订一国宪法（当然，英国没有成文宪法）后果更大——在没有合适制衡的情况下做出了。


Does the vote have to be repeated after a year to be sure?	需要一年后再进行一次投票以确认结果吗？


No.	不。


Does a majority in Parliament have to support Brexit?	需要议会多数支持英国退出吗？


Apparently not.	显然不。


Did the UK’s population really know what they were voting on?	英国民众真的知道他们在投什么票吗？


Absolutely not.	显然不。


Indeed, no one has any idea of the consequences, both for the UK in the global trading system, or the effect on domestic political stability.	事实上，没人对后果有任何了解，不管是对全球贸易体系中的英国，还是对国内政治稳定的影响。


I am afraid it is not going to be a pretty picture.	这恐怕绝非美妙图景。


Mind you, citizens of the West are blessed to live in a time of peace: changing circumstances and priorities can be addressed through democratic processes instead of foreign and civil wars.	提醒一下，天佑西方公民生活在和平时代：改变环境和重点可以通过民主程序而不是对外和对内战争实现。


But what, exactly, is a fair, democratic process for making irreversible, nation-defining decisions?	但对于不可撤销的、给予国家定义的决定，什么才是民主程序？


Is it really enough to get 52% to vote for breakup on a rainy day?	在一个雨天以52%的支持率实现脱离真的足够了吗？


In terms of durability and conviction of preferences, most societies place greater hurdles in the way of a couple seeking a divorce than Prime Minister David Cameron’s government did on the decision to leave the EU.	就持久性和确定偏好（conviction of preferences）而言，大部分社会为寻求离婚的夫妻设置的障碍都要大于首相卡梅伦政府给脱离欧盟的决定所设置的障碍。


Brexiteers did not invent this game; there is ample precedent, including Scotland in 2014 and Quebec in 1995.	英国退出派不是这一游戏的发明者； 此前有过多次先例，包括2014年的苏格兰和1995年的魁北克。


But, until now, the gun’s cylinder never stopped on the bullet.	但是，此前俄罗斯轮盘从未转到过子弹。


Now that it has, it is time to rethink the rules of the game.	这一次转到了子弹，因此是时候反思游戏规则了。


The idea that somehow any decision reached anytime by majority rule is necessarily “democratic” is a perversion of the term.	无论如何，在任何时候，通过多数规则达成的任何决定必然是“民主”的，这一思想是对民主的曲解。


Modern democracies have evolved systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences.	现代民主已经演化出制衡制度以保护少数人的利益和避免做出能带来灾难性后果的信息不足的决定。


The greater and more lasting the decision, the higher the hurdles.	决定越是重大和持久，决策障碍越高。


That’s why enacting, say, a constitutional amendment generally requires clearing far higher hurdles than passing a spending bill.	因此，（比如）修订宪法索要克服的障碍一般而言远高于通过支出法案。


Yet the current international standard for breaking up a country is arguably less demanding than a vote for lowering the drinking age.	但目前脱离与一个国家的国际标准似乎远远要比降低饮酒年龄要低。


With Europe now facing the risk of a slew of further breakup votes, an urgent question is whether there is a better way to make these decisions.	如今，欧洲面临着一系列后续脱欧投票，一个紧迫的问题是是否有更好的办法做出这些决定。


I polled several leading political scientists to see whether there is any academic consensus; unfortunately, the short answer is no.	我调查了不少著名政治学家，想搞清楚是否存在学术上的共识。 不幸的是，简单的回答是否定的。


For one thing, the Brexit decision may have looked simple on the ballot, but in truth no one knows what comes next after a leave vote.	一方面，英国退出决定可能在投票箱中看起来十分简单，但事实上没人知道脱离的结果会带来什么。


What we do know is that, in practice, most countries require a “supermajority” for nation-defining decisions, not a mere 51%.	我们知道的是，在实践中，大部分国家的国家定义决定需要“压倒性多数”，而不仅仅是51%。


There is no universal figure like 60%, but the general principle is that, at a bare minimum, the majority ought to be demonstrably stable.	没有普遍的标准（如60%），但一般的原则是，最低限度至少要保证多数具有确然稳定性。


A country should not be making fundamental, irreversible changes based on a razor-thin minority that might prevail only during a brief window of emotion.	一个国家不应该基于极其微弱、情绪窗口的短���变化就可以推翻的差距来做出不可推翻的根本性决定。


Even if the UK economy does not fall into outright recession after this vote (the pound’s decline might cushion the initial blow), there is every chance that the resulting economic and political disorder will give some who voted to leave “buyers’ remorse.”	即便此次投票后英国经济不陷入全面衰退（英镑贬值或能缓冲最初的冲击），由此产生的经济和政治失序也很有可能让一些投票支持脱欧者感到“买家的后悔”。


Since ancient times, philosophers have tried to devise systems to try to balance the strengths of majority rule against the need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions, not to mention that minority voices are heard.	自远古时代以来，哲学家便试图设计制度以实现多数规则的强度与确保信息灵通的群体在关键性决定中有更大的发言权（更不用说让少数群体的生意被听见）的需要之间的平衡。


In the Spartan assemblies of ancient Greece, votes were cast by acclamation.	在古希腊斯巴达的国民大会上，投票通过喝彩声音的高低来体现。


People could modulate their voice to reflect the intensity of their preferences, with a presiding officer carefully listening and then declaring the outcome.	人们通过声音的高低来体现他们的偏好强弱，由一位主持会议的官员仔细聆听，然后宣布结果。


It was imperfect, but maybe better than what just happened in the UK.	这种方法不完美，但也许比英国公投要好一点。


By some accounts, Sparta’s sister state, Athens, had implemented the purest historical example of democracy.	从某些方面看，斯巴达的姊妹城邦雅典堪称最纯粹的民主历史榜样。


All classes were given equal votes (albeit only males).	所有阶级都拥有平等的选票（尽管只授予男性）。


Ultimately, though, after some catastrophic war decisions, Athenians saw a need to give more power to independent bodies.	但最终，在一些灾难性战争决定后，雅典人发现需要将更多权力授予独立机构。


What should the UK have done if the question of EU membership had to be asked (which by the way, it didn’t)?	如果要求回答欧元成员资格问题（顺便说一句，其实并没有这一要求），英国会怎么做？


Surely, the hurdle should have been a lot higher; for example, Brexit should have required, say, two popular votes spaced out over at least two years, followed by a 60% vote in the House of Commons.	显然，障碍会显著提高； 比如，英国退出应该要求（比方说）两次群众投票，相隔至少两年，并随后在下议院以60%以上多数通过。


If Brexit still prevailed, at least we could know it was not just a one-time snapshot of a fragment of the population.	如果英国退出仍然获胜，至少我们可以知道这不是民意分裂的一时写照。


The UK vote has thrown Europe into turmoil.	英国的公投让欧洲陷入了混乱。


A lot will depend on how the world reacts and how the UK government manages to reconstitute itself.	很多事情将取决于世界如何反应以及英国政府如何重组自身。


It is important to take stock not just of the outcome, though, but of the process.	一个要点是是不但要盘点结果，也要盘点过程。


Any action to redefine a long-standing arrangement on a country’s borders ought to require a lot more than a simple majority in a one-time vote.	任何重新制定关于一国边界的长期存在的安排的行动都绝不应该仅仅要求一次性简单多数投票。


The current international norm of simple majority rule is, as we have just seen, a formula for chaos.	如我们刚刚看到的，当前国际简单多数的规则不啻致乱法宝。


But the layers of representation on which the EU relies have created the sense that a kind of “Über-elite” is running things, far removed from ordinary citizens.	带欧盟所依赖的代表的层次造成了一种感觉，即某种“超精英���在主宰，远远超然于普通民众之上。


And it would have to allow EU citizens free entry, a political bugbear for most Brexit supporters.	它还必须允许欧盟公民自由进入，这���政治上足以令大多数脱盟支持者苦恼不已。


Brexit and the Future of Europe	英国退出与欧洲的未来


NEW YORK – Britain, I believe, had the best of all possible deals with the European Union, being a member of the common market without belonging to the euro and having secured a number of other opt-outs from EU rules.	纽约—我认为，英国与欧盟之间的协议已是最为有利的了，它身为共同市场成员而不属于欧元区，并且保有诸多其他不实行欧盟规则的选择权。


And yet that was not enough to stop the United Kingdom’s electorate from voting to leave.	饶是如此，仍不足以阻止英国选民选择脱离。


The answer could be seen in opinion polls in the months leading up to the “Brexit” referendum.	答案可以从“英国退出”全民公决前几个月所进行的民意调查中一窥端倪。


The European migration crisis and the Brexit debate fed on each other.	欧洲移民危机和英国退出互相强化。


The “Leave” campaign exploited the deteriorating refugee situation – symbolized by frightening images of thousands of asylum-seekers concentrating in Calais, desperate to enter Britain by any means necessary – to stoke fear of “uncontrolled” immigration from other EU member states.	“脱欧”阵营抓住恶化的难民状况——成千上万寻求庇护者在加莱集中，不惜一切代价要进入英国，诸如此类符号化的骇人图片——煽动对来自其他欧盟成员国的“失控”的移民的恐慌。


And the European authorities delayed important decisions on refugee policy in order to avoid a negative effect on the British referendum vote, thereby perpetuating scenes of chaos like the one in Calais.	而欧洲当局推迟了重要的难民政策决定，以避免对英国全民公决造成消极影响，从而让加莱等地的乱象持久持续。


German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to open her country’s doors wide to refugees was an inspiring gesture, but it was not properly thought out, because it ignored the pull factor.	德国总理默克尔决定洞开国门迎接难民，这是一个鼓舞人心的姿态，但考虑欠妥，因为这样做没有考虑到拉动因素。


A sudden influx of asylum-seekers disrupted people in their everyday lives across the EU.	寻求庇护者的猛然涌入干扰了全体欧盟人民的日常生活。


The lack of adequate controls, moreover, created panic, affecting everyone: the local population, the authorities in charge of public safety, and the refugees themselves.	此外，控制力不足还造成了恐慌，影响到所有人：本地居民，负责公共安全的当局、以及难民本身。


It has also paved the way for the rapid rise of xenophobic anti-European parties – such as the UK Independence Party, which spearheaded the Leave campaign – as national governments and European institutions seem incapable of handling the crisis.	这也为仇外反欧政党的迅速崛起创造了条件——比如英国脱欧阵营领袖独立党（Independence Party）——因为国家政府和欧洲机构似乎无力应对这场危机。


Now the catastrophic scenario that many feared has materialized, making the disintegration of the EU practically irreversible.	如今，许多人所担心的灾难情景成为了现实，欧盟解体实际已经无可挽回。


Britain eventually may or may not be relatively better off than other countries by leaving the EU, but its economy and people stand to suffer significantly in the short to medium term.	退出欧盟的英国可能会比其他国家相对状况好一些，也可能差一些，但在短期和中期，其经济和人民必定会蒙受巨大的损失。


The pound plunged to its lowest level in more than three decades immediately after the vote, and financial markets worldwide are likely to remain in turmoil as the long, complicated process of political and economic divorce from the EU is negotiated.	公决之后，英镑立即下跌至三十多年来的最低水平，在漫长而复杂的脱欧政治和经济谈判进行期间，全球金融市场可能一直保持动荡。


The consequences for the real economy will be comparable only to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.	对实体经济所造成的后果只有2007—2008年的金融危机才能与之相提并论。


That process is sure to be fraught with further uncertainty and political risk, because what is at stake was never only some real or imaginary advantage for Britain, but the very survival of the European project.	这一过程必然还将充满进一步的不确定性和政治风险，因为它所牵涉到的不仅仅是英国的实际或想象中的优势，而是整个欧洲工程的存亡。


Brexit will open the floodgates for other anti-European forces within the Union.	英国退出将打开欧盟内部其他反欧力量的防洪门。


Indeed, no sooner was the referendum’s outcome announced than France’s National Front issued a call for “Frexit,” while Dutch populist Geert Wilders promoted “Nexit.”	事实上，英国公决结果一公布，法国国民阵线就提出要“法国退出”，而荷兰民粹主义者吉尔特·怀尔德斯（Geert Wilder）也在鼓吹“荷兰退出”。


Moreover, the UK itself may not survive.	此外，英国本身亦有可能不保。


Scotland, which voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, can be expected to make another attempt to gain its independence, and some officials in Northern Ireland, where voters also backed Remain, have already called for unification with the Republic of Ireland.	苏格兰人一边倒地支持留在欧盟，可以预期，它将再次争取独立，而在同样支持留欧的北爱尔兰，一些官员已经提出要和爱尔兰共和国合并。


The EU’s response to Brexit could well prove to be another pitfall.	欧盟对英国退出的反应很有可能是另一个隐患。


European leaders, eager to deter other member states from following suit, may be in no mood to offer the UK terms – particularly concerning access to Europe’s single market – that would soften the pain of leaving.	欧洲领导人急切地想打消其他成员国效仿英国的念头，可能不会向英国提供有助于减轻脱欧痛苦的条件——特别是在进入欧洲统一市场方面。


With the EU accounting for half of British trade turnover, the impact on exporters could be devastating (despite a more competitive exchange rate).	欧盟贡献了英国贸易额的半壁江山，出口商受到的影响可能将是灾难性的（尽管拥有更具竞争力的汇率）。


And, with financial institutions relocating their operations and staff to eurozone hubs in the coming years, the City of London (and London’s housing market) will not be spared the pain.	此外，未来几年金融机构也将把业务和人手调往欧元区金融枢纽，伦敦金融城（以及伦敦房地产市场）将无法避免阵痛。


But the implications for Europe could be far worse.	但对欧洲的影响可能要糟糕得多。


Tensions among member states have reached a breaking point, not only over refugees, but also as a result of exceptional strains between creditor and debtor countries within the eurozone.	成员国之间的紧张状况已经达到了一个极限，不仅是因为难民问题，也是因为欧元区内部债权国和债务国之间的极端对立。


At the same time, weakened leaders in France and Germany are now squarely focused on domestic problems.	与此同时，法国和德国的弱势领导人现在全部精力都集中在国内问题上。


In Italy, a 10% fall in the stock market following the Brexit vote clearly signals the country’s vulnerability to a full-blown banking crisis – which could well bring the populist Five Star Movement, which has just won the mayoralty in Rome, to power as early as next year.	在意大利，英国退出公决导致股市下跌10%，这清楚地表明它极易受到全面银行危机的冲击——这很可能导致民粹主义的五星运动（Five Star Movement，刚刚赢得罗马市长选举）早至明年就上台掌权。


None of this bodes well for a serious program of eurozone reform, which would have to include a genuine banking union, a limited fiscal union, and much stronger mechanisms of democratic accountability.	所有这些对于严肃的欧盟改革计划来说都不是好兆头。 欧盟改革计划必须包括一个真正的银行联盟，一个有限的财政联盟，以及大大增强的民主问责机制。


And time is not on Europe’s side, as external pressures from the likes of Turkey and Russia – both of which are exploiting the discord to their advantage – compound Europe’s internal political strife.	时间也不利于欧洲，因为来自土耳其和俄罗斯（两国都在利用欧洲的不和）等国的外部压力将让欧洲内部政治冲突更加复杂。


That is where we are today.	这就是我们今天的处境。


All of Europe, including Britain, would suffer from the loss of the common market and the loss of common values that the EU was designed to protect.	全体欧洲，包括英国，都将因为失去共同市场和成立欧盟来保护的共同价值而蒙受损失。


Yet the EU truly has broken down and ceased to satisfy its citizens’ needs and aspirations.	但欧盟实际已经残缺，不再满足公民的需要和渴望。


It is heading for a disorderly disintegration that will leave Europe worse off than where it would have been had the EU not been brought into existence.	欧盟正在走向无序解体，将让欧洲面临比欧盟从未存在过更加糟糕的境地。


But we must not give up.	但我们决不能放弃。


Admittedly, the EU is a flawed construction.	诚然，欧盟是一个有缺陷的结构。


After Brexit, all of us who believe in the values and principles that the EU was designed to uphold must band together to save it by thoroughly reconstructing it.	英国退出后，所有坚信作为欧盟建立基础的价值和原则的人都必须同心协力，通过彻底的结构重组来拯救欧盟。


I am convinced that as the consequences of Brexit unfold in the weeks and months ahead, more and more people will join us.	我相信，随着未来几周和几个月英国退出的后果逐渐显现，更多的人将加入我们的行列。


European Integration With or Without Britain	有无英国参加的欧洲一体化


WASHINGTON, DC – When British Prime Minister David Cameron agreed with the European Union in February on revised terms for the United Kingdom’s membership, he insisted that the EU be recognized officially as a “multi-currency union.”	华盛顿——在英国首相戴维·卡梅伦2月与欧盟就经过修改的英国成员资格达成一致时，他坚持要求欧盟应获得“多币种联盟”的正式承认。


With clear limits on European integration in place, on currency and other issues, Cameron believed that he would be able to win a popular majority in favor of the deal – and thus of remaining in the EU – when the UK holds its referendum on June 23.	因为欧洲一体化在货币和其他问题上都存在明确的限制，卡梅伦认为他应当可以赢得多数民众对这项协议的支持——从而在6月23日英国举行的全民公投中达到留在欧盟的目的。


Yet, rather than providing such clarity, the pact uses contorted language to avoid such an official declaration – and the explanations that would have to come with it.	但协议不仅没有在这方面做出明确的表述，反而用扭曲的语言来避免发布这样的正式声明——以及随之而来的必不可少的解释。


To be sure, the February decision did give Cameron enough to enable him to campaign against Brexit.	可以肯定，2月决议的确给了卡梅伦足够的筹码组织反对英国退欧的活动。


By specifying that the UK and Denmark are under no obligation to adopt the euro, Cameron’s counterparts did effectively confirm the EU’s status as a multi-currency union.	因为特别指出英国和丹麦没有义务采用欧元，卡梅伦的同行们确实有效确认了欧盟作为“多货币联盟”的地位。


But the decision also reiterated the goal of creating an EU “whose currency is the euro,” and reaffirmed treaty provisions stipulating that other non-euro states, such as Bulgaria and Poland, must adopt the euro when they meet the pre-determined conditions.	但决议同时重申了建立“以欧元为货币的”欧盟的目标，并再次重申了条约规定，要求其他非欧元区国家（如保加利亚和波兰）必须在满足预设条件时采用欧元。


(Sweden has no permanent opt-out, and does meet the conditions for euro adoption, yet somehow manages to avoid joining the monetary union.)	（瑞典并没有永久退出，并且已经满足了采用欧元的条件，却不知何故成功地避免了加入货币联盟。 ）


That ambiguity was born of an unwillingness – or inability – to provide a clear description of how a multi-currency union will function in the long term.	这样的模棱两可是因为不愿或不能清晰描述多货币联盟将如何发挥长期作用。


It is a tough question – one that will have to be addressed, regardless of the referendum’s outcome.	这是个很难但却必须回答的问题，无论公投最终得出什么样的结果。


After all, if British voters choose to leave the EU, a similar problem would arise in any post-“Brexit” negotiation to keep the UK in the single market.	毕竟，如果英国选民选择退出欧盟，那么让英国留在统一市场的类似问题还将在后“英国退欧”谈判中涉及到。


There is now a general consensus that, over time, the eurozone will need to build more integrated economic governance systems.	现在已经达成普遍共识，即承认随着时间的推移，欧元区将要建立更加一体化的经济治理系统。


Indeed, most economists agree that any monetary union needs not only a banking union, which is now being established in the eurozone, but also greater fiscal-policy coordination, to compensate for the lack of independent monetary policies and flexible exchange rates.	事实上，多数经济学家认同任何货币联盟所需要的不仅是银行业联盟（上述联盟目前在欧元区已经成立），并且还需要更大规模的财政政策协调，以弥补独立货币政策和灵活汇率政策缺失的不足。


Politicians, too, support the shift toward greater fiscal integration – at least those who represent the moderate mainstream.	政界人士，至少那些代表主流温和派的政界人士同样支持朝着财政一体化的转型。


Germany’s conservative finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, France’s center-left Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron, and Italy’s centrist Finance Minister Pier Carlo Padoan, have all called for versions of a common eurozone finance minister.	德国保守派财政部长沃尔夫冈·朔伊布勒，法国中左翼经济部长马克隆和意大利中间派财政部长帕多安都曾提出任命统一欧元区财政部长的不同版本。


Where the disagreement lies is in the form integration should take.	分歧主要在于一体化应采取何种形式。


Germany considers fiscal coordination to be critical to enforcing firm rules of conduct, while France and Italy would like to include more mechanisms for common risk management, such as Eurobonds or cost sharing for unemployment insurance.	德国认为强制落实行为准则的关键是财政协调，而法国和意大利则认为应更多建立普遍的风险管理机制，如欧洲债券或分摊成本的失业保险。


Clearly, a balance will need to be struck.	显然，需要就这个问题找到平衡点。


To satisfy Germany, stronger fiscal rules must form the foundation of greater integration.	要想满足德国的要求，就必须以强大的财政规则作为扩大一体化的基础。


But such rules must entail greater counter-cyclicality and more symmetry, forcing surplus and deficit countries alike to reduce imbalances.	但上述规则必须强化逆周期性和平衡性，从而迫使顺差国和逆差国同步削减不平衡现象。


Moreover, the framework will need to support more effective risk sharing and a distinct eurozone budget, as the southern member states demand.	不仅如此，上述管理架构还必须支持有效的风险分担并制定明确的欧元区预算，以此来满足南部欧洲成员国的要求。


Institutional and legal changes, including the establishment of some kind of eurozone parliament and treasury, will also be needed, in order to provide legitimacy to the endeavor.	此外还需进行制度和法律改革，包括成立某种形式的欧元区议会及财政部，以便为这项事业提供合法性。


Achieving all of this is essential to enable the EU to function as an effective multi-currency union.	实现这一切是确保欧盟成为有效多币种联盟的关键。


Cameron, like his predecessor Gordon Brown, who was present at the euro’s creation, but kept the UK out, recognizes the need for further eurozone integration, if only because the UK has an interest in better economic performance in its most important export market.	卡梅伦像其前任——参与欧盟创立但却阻止英国加入的戈登·布朗一样，承认哪怕仅仅为了英国最重要的出口市场经济表现强劲对英国有利，也有必要推进欧元区的进一步融合。


But engaging effectively with a more deeply integrated eurozone, without joining it, will be no easy feat.	但在拒绝加入的情况下有效接触更加统一的欧元区却并非易事。


To be successful, the UK will need to pursue two key objectives.	实现两个关键目标才能确保英国的成功。


First, it must establish strong cooperation with the EU on other key issues, such as security, foreign, and climate policy.	首先，它必须在其他关键事务上与欧盟开展强劲的合作，比如安全、外交和气候政策。


Second, it must ensure that an increasingly integrated eurozone does not gain the authority to make unilaterally fiscal and regulatory decisions that, by reshaping the single market or the financial sector, have significant implications for the UK.	其次，它还必须确保一体化程度不断增强的欧元区无权单方面出台财政和监管决策，通过重塑统一市场或金融行业而严重影响到英国。


The eurozone, for its part, must regard British interests in the integration process, without allowing the UK to slow it down.	而就欧元区这方面而言，则必须在一体化过程中考虑到英国的利益，同时还不能让英国导致一体化进程放缓。


While issues relating to eurozone integration and the multi-currency union have not been central to the Brexit debate, which has tended to focus on immigration, they remain vital to the future of the EU, with or without the UK.	尽管欧元区一体化和多币种联盟相关事务并未成为英国退欧辩论的核心（英国退欧辩论主要关注移民问题），但无论英国退欧与否，上述事务都将是决定欧盟未来的关键。


Though Britain’s continued EU membership is not fundamentally incompatible with a more integrated eurozone, creating institutions that can support a permanent multi-currency union – essentially, as I have argued, two Europes in one – will be politically and legally challenging.	尽管英国继续保留欧盟成员国资格从本质上讲与欧盟一体化并不矛盾（本质上这就是我所提出的两个欧洲合一），但创建能够支持永久性多币种联盟的体制将构成极大的政治和法律挑战。


In its failure to put forward a clear vision, the deal announced in February did not set a strong precedent for overcoming these challenges.	因为未能确定清晰的目标，2月所公布的协议未能为克服上述挑战开创有效的先例。


If Europe is to make genuine progress toward greater stability and prosperity, it will need to ensure transparency and legitimacy every step of the way.	如果欧洲想在加强稳定和繁荣方面切实取得进展，就必须时刻不忘保证透明度和合法性。


Only with a clear political vision and institutions that can steer policy during crises and in normal times alike will the EU be able to prosper again.	只有建立起能在正常及危机时刻同样引导政策的明确的政治目标和体制，欧盟才能重新实现繁荣。


If the UK stays, the EU must urgently work out how a legitimate multi-currency union will function, instead of reverting to business as usual.	如果英国决定留下，欧盟不仅不能回归常态，还必须争分夺秒找到合法多币种联盟的有效运作方法。


If the UK leaves, the same basic problems must be solved, with the difference, however, that the UK will have lost all leverage.	如果英国决定退出，欧盟同样要解决上述问题，当然不同之处是英国将失去所有的筹码。


From Brexit to the Future	从英国退出到未来


NEW YORK – Digesting the full implications of the United Kingdom’s “Brexit” referendum will take Britain, Europe, and the world a long time.	纽约—消化“英国退出”公投的全部影响要耗费英国、欧洲和全世界很长时间。


The most profound consequences will, of course, depend on the European Union’s response to the UK’s withdrawal.	当然，影响最为深远的后果取决于欧盟如何响应英国的退出。


Most people initially assumed that the EU would not “cut off its nose to spite its face”: after all, an amicable divorce seems to be in everyone’s interest.	大部分人一开始认定欧盟不会“为了惩罚脸而割掉鼻子”：毕竟，友好离婚似乎符合所有人的利益。


But the divorce – as many do – could become messy.	但这场离婚——和许多人一样——可能变成一地鸡毛。


The benefits of trade and economic integration between the UK and EU are mutual, and if the EU took seriously its belief that closer economic integration is better, its leaders would seek to ensure the closest ties possible under the circumstances.	英国和欧盟之间的贸易和经济一体化的收益是互相的，如果欧盟认真对待其经济一体化越紧密越好的信念，其领导人就应该寻求确保各种环境下最大程度的紧密度。


But Jean-Claude Juncker, the architect of Luxembourg’s massive corporate tax avoidance schemes and now President of the European Commission, is taking a hard line: “Out means out,” he says.	但卢森堡大规模公司税避税机制的设计者、现任欧盟委员会主席容克却采取了强硬立场：“退出就是退出，”他说。


That kneejerk reaction is perhaps understandable, given that Juncker may be remembered as the person who presided over the EU’s initial stage of dissolution.	这一膝跳反应也许不难理解，因为容克可能作为欧盟解体初期的领导者而被人铭记。


He argues that, to deter other countries from leaving, the EU must be uncompromising, offering the UK little more than what it is guaranteed under World Trade Organization agreements.	他指出，为了威慑其他想要脱欧的国家，欧盟决不能让步，不能向英国提供多于世贸组织协定所规定的东西。


In other words, Europe is not to be held together by its benefits, which far exceed the costs.	换句话说，欧洲不再通过收益凝聚在一起——这一收益要远远高于成本。


Economic prosperity, the sense of solidarity, and the pride of being a European are not enough, according to Juncker.	根据容克的说法，经济繁荣、凝聚感以及身为欧洲人的自豪感是不够的。


No, Europe is to be held together by threats, intimidation, and fear.	不，欧洲要通过威胁、恐吓和恐惧凝聚在一起。


That position ignores a lesson seen in both the Brexit vote and America’s Republican Party primary: large portions of the population have not been doing well.	这一立场忽视了英国退出投票和美国共和党初选所揭示的教训：人口中有很大部分不做好事。


The neoliberal agenda of the last four decades may have been good for the top 1%, but not for the rest.	过去四十年的新自由主义日程对最顶层1%有益，而对其他人无益。


I had long predicted that this stagnation would eventually have political consequences.	我早就预测，这一停止最终将导致政治后果。


That day is now upon us.	现在，这一天来了。


On both sides of the Atlantic, citizens are seizing upon trade agreements as a source of their woes.	在大西洋两岸，公民将贸易协定视为灾难的根源。


While this is an over-simplification, it is understandable.	这固然过度简化了，但也可以理解。


Today’s trade agreements are negotiated in secret, with corporate interests well represented, but ordinary citizens or workers completely shut out.	今天的贸易��定由秘密谈判商定，公司部门的利益得到了很好的体现，但普通人或工人被完全无视了。


Not surprisingly, the results have been one-sided: workers’ bargaining position has been weakened further, compounding the effects of legislation undermining unions and employees’ rights.	毫不奇怪，结果是单边的：工人的讨价还价地位进一步削弱，这将强了支持工会和雇员权利的立法的效果。


While trade agreements played a role in creating this inequality, much else contributed to tilting the political balance toward capital.	贸易协定在这一不平等性形成的过程中起到了一些作用，但其他许多因素也助推政治平衡导向资本。


Intellectual property rules, for example, have increased pharmaceutical companies’ power to raise prices.	比如，知识产权规则增加了制药公司提价的权力。


But any increase in corporations’ market power is de facto a lowering of real wages – an increase in the inequality that has become a hallmark of most advanced countries today.	但公司市场权力的任何提高事实上都是在降低真实工资——这一不平等性已经成为当今大部分发达国家的显著特征。


Across many sectors, industrial concentration is increasing – and so is market power.	许多部门的行业集中度都在增加——市场权力亦然。


The effects of stagnant and declining real wages have combined with those of austerity, threatening cutbacks in public services upon which so many middle- and low-income workers depend.	停滞和下降的真实工资的效果与紧缩相结合，导致许多中低收入工人赖以生存的公共服务被削减。


The resulting economic uncertainty for workers, when combined with migration, created a toxic brew.	由此带来的工人的经济不确定性与移民问题相结合，酿成了一壶毒酒。


Many refugees are victims of war and oppression to which the West contributed.	许多难民是西方造成的战争和压迫的牺牲品。


Providing help is a moral responsibility of all, but especially of the ex-colonial powers.	提供帮助是所有人的道德责任，但尤其是前殖民列强的道德责任。


And yet, while many might deny it, an increase in the supply of low-skill labor leads – so long as there are normal downward-sloping demand curves – to lower equilibrium wages.	但是，尽管许多人可能否认，但低技能劳动力供给的增加导致了均衡工资的降低——只要需求曲线是正常的向下倾斜形状。


And when wages can’t or won’t be lowered, unemployment increases.	而当工资无法或不再降低，失业就会升高。


This is of most concern in countries where economic mismanagement has already led to a high level of overall unemployment.	对于经济管理不善已经导致总体失业水平高企的国家来说，这是个最可担忧的问题。


Europe, especially the eurozone, has been badly mismanaged in recent decades, to the point that its average unemployment is in double digits.	欧洲，特别是欧元区，近几十年来经济管理非常糟糕，平均失业水平已经高达两位数。


Free migration within Europe means that countries that have done a better job at reducing unemployment will predictably end up with more than their fair share of refugees.	欧洲内部的自由迁移意味着在降低失业方面表现较为出色国家最终将承担高于公平比例的难民。


Workers in these countries bear the cost in depressed wages and higher unemployment, while employers benefit from cheaper labor.	这些国家的工人承担了工资抑制和失业升高的成本，而雇主从更廉价的劳动力中获益。


The burden of refugees, no surprise, falls on those least able to bear it.	毫不奇怪，难民的成本由承受力最低的人承担了。


Of course, there is much talk about the net benefits of inward migration.	当然，关于内向移民的净收益很有讨论的余地。


For a country providing a low level of guaranteed benefits – social protection, education, health care, and so forth – to all citizens, that may be the case.	对于全民保障福利——社会保护、教育、医疗等——提供水平较低的国家，或许如此。


But for countries that provide a decent social safety net, the opposite is true.	但对于提供体面的社会安全网的国家，情况正好相反。


The result of all this downward pressure on wages and cutbacks in public services has been the evisceration of the middle class, with similar consequences on both sides of the Atlantic.	所有这些工资下行压力和公共服务削减的结果是中产阶级损失惨重，大西洋两岸后果类似。 中产阶级和工作阶级家庭没有获得经济增长的好处。


Middle- and working-class households haven’t received the benefits of economic growth.	他们知道是银行造成了2008年危机；


They understand that banks had caused the 2008 crisis; but then they saw billions going to save the banks, and trivial amounts to save their homes and jobs.	但随后他们看着数十亿美元用于拯救银行，而用于拯救他们的家园和工作的资金却寥寥无几。


With median real (inflation-adjusted) income for a full-time male worker in the US lower than it was four decades ago, an angry electorate should come as no surprise.	美国全职男性工人中位真实（经通胀调整的）收入比四十年前更低，选民群情激奋一点都不令人奇怪。


Politicians who promised change, moreover, didn’t deliver what was expected.	此外，承诺变化的政客并没有兑现预期。


Ordinary citizens knew that the system was unfair, but they came to see it as even more rigged than they had imagined, losing what little trust they had left in establishment politicians’ capacity or will to correct it.	普通公民知道制度不公，但后来发现操纵比他们想象的还要严重，于是他们对建制政客纠正不公的能力或意愿仅剩一点信任也消失殆尽。


That, too, is understandable: the new politicians shared the outlook of those who had promised that globalization would benefit all.	这也不难理解：新政客与那些承诺全球化会令所有人受益的政客见解相似。


But voting in anger does not solve problems, and it may bring about a political and economic situation that is even worse.	但带着怒气投票无法解决问题，倒是有可能产生更加糟糕的政治和经济局面。


The same is true of responding to a vote in anger.	响应带着怒气的投票亦然。


Letting bygones be bygones is a basic principle in economics.	让过去的事情过去，这是经济学的一个基本原理。


On both sides of the English Channel, politics should now be directed at understanding how, in a democracy, the political establishment could have done so little to address the concerns of so many citizens.	在英吉利海峡两岸，眼下政治方向应该是理解民主政体中的政治建制为何对于解决如此多公民所关注的问题如此无作为。


Every EU government must now regard improving ordinary citizens’ wellbeing as its primary goal.	如今，所有欧盟国家政府都必须将改善普通公民的福祉作为主要目标。


More neoliberal ideology won’t help.	更多的新自由主义意识形态无助于事。


And we should stop confusing ends with means: for example, free trade, if well managed, might bring greater shared prosperity; but if it is not well managed, it will lower the living standards of many – possibly a majority – of citizens.	我们还应该停止用手段混淆目的：比如，管理良好的自由贸易可能带来更大的共同繁荣； 但如果得不到良好的管理，它就将降低许多——也许是大部分——公民的生活水平。


There are alternatives to the current neoliberal arrangements that can create shared prosperity, just as there are alternatives – like US President Barack Obama’s proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal with the EU – that would cause much more harm.	对于当前的新自由主义安排，存在一些替代方案能够创造共同繁荣，正如也存在一些替代方案——如美国总统奥巴马提出的与欧盟的跨大西洋贸易和投资伙伴关系——将带来更多的伤害。


The challenge today is to learn from the past, in order to embrace the former and avert the latter.	如今的挑战是汲取历史教训，追求前者，避免后者。


Brexit and the Future of Europe	英国脱欧和欧洲的未来


PARIS – No one yet knows when the United Kingdom will present an agenda for negotiating its withdrawal from the European Union.	巴黎——没有人知道英国准备何时提交其脱欧谈判的议程。


But it is already clear that Brexit will reshape the map of Europe.	但毫无疑问英国脱欧必将重塑欧洲的版图。


And, especially given Britain’s stunning unpreparedness for the consequences of its own decision – its strategy, priorities, and even its timetable remain uncertain – that means that the EU must start figuring out how to make the best of it.	而且，尤其鉴于英国对其自身决策后果令人惊叹的毫无准备——英国的战略、优先事项甚至脱欧时间表都依然无法确定——这意味着欧盟必须开始思考如何争取最好的结果。


Here’s how.	下面谈谈应该怎么做。


Let’s start with the only certainties: the Brexit negotiations will be long, complex, and acrimonious, and the divorce will have far-reaching geopolitical effects.	让我们从唯一的确定性开始：英国脱欧谈判必将长期、复杂和激烈，而英欧离异必将产生意义深远的地缘政治后果。


The immediate impact is a halt to 60 years of integration momentum.	最直接的影响是逆转长达六十年的整合势头。


Europe will suffer in the short and medium term as well, as considerable political energy is likely to be devoted to Brexit for the next five years, at a time when the EU needs the strength to confront internal and external dangers.	欧洲在中短期同样将会蒙受损失，因为未来五年当欧盟需要集中精力应对内外威胁时，却不得不分出大量政治精力投入英国脱欧的谈判工作。


Over the longer term, Brexit is likely to accelerate Europe’s exit from the top table of global decision-making.	从长远看，英国脱欧很可能会加速欧洲从全球顶级决策网络的退出。


Britain will not escape these consequences.	英国同样无法逃脱这些后果。


Whereas it can leave the EU, it cannot relocate away from Europe.	虽然英国可以退出欧盟，但却显然无法搬离欧洲。


That is why, though Britain’s European partners did not choose Brexit, they must manage its consequences successfully, which requires balancing two priorities.	因此，尽管英国的欧洲伙伴从未选择英国脱欧，但却必须成功地对其后果进行管理，而这需要平衡两大优先项目。


Their tactical goal must be to reach a deal with the UK that maintains the integrity of the EU.	他们的战术目标必然是与英国达成维护欧盟统一的协议。


The strategic goal is to preserve Europe’s prosperity and influence.	协议必须以保持欧洲的繁荣和影响力为战略目标。


It is with these ideas in mind that I, together with several European colleagues – all of us acting in an individual capacity – recently co-authored a paper proposing a concept for Europe in 10-20 years: a continental partnership that would create a new basis for continued economic, foreign policy, and security cooperation with the UK.	正是在上述想法的基础上我与若干欧洲同仁携手——我们每个人都是以个人名义——最近联合撰写了一份为未来10到20年的欧洲提出理念的论文：那就是建设新型大陆伙伴关系，为继续与英国开展经济、外交及安全合作奠定新的基础。


The basic economic idea is a template for a relationship that is considerably less deep than EU membership, but rather closer than a free-trade agreement.	建立深度远低于欧盟成员国，但密切度远高于自由贸易协定的基本经济理念是新型关系的基础。


If adopted, Britain and the EU could not only preserve their economic ties, but also provide a new model for the future relationship between the EU and neighbors that will not join it anytime soon: Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and eventually southern Mediterranean countries.	如果上述目标得以实现，英国和欧盟不仅能够保持经济关系，而且还能为欧盟与不太可能在近期加入的邻国（包括挪威、瑞士、土耳其、乌克兰，最后还有地中海南部国家）建设未来关系提供新的模型。 。


Any proposal regarding the future of the EU-UK relationship must start from an interpretation of the Brexit referendum’s meaning.	有关欧盟英国关系未来的一切提案都必须以解释英国脱欧公投的含义为先决条件。


Ours assumes that UK voters rejected both the legal impossibility of limiting inflows of workers from the EU and the principle of pooled sovereignty.	我们认为英国选民拒绝接受限制欧盟工人流入和共同主权原则两方面的法律不可能。


These two political constraints should be taken as a given.	上述两方面的政治限制应当被视为先决条件。


The first implies that a lasting arrangement between Britain and the EU cannot include free movement of labor.	第一条意味着英欧长期安排不得包含劳动力自由流动。


The second rules out participation in a common polity, and thus implies that any cooperation must be based on intergovernmental agreements.	第二条则排除了参与共同政策，因此意味着必须以政府间协议为基础来开展任何合作。


The first constraint is a serious stumbling block, because the EU is based on the free movement of goods, services, capital, and workers.	第一条限制是一块沉重的绊脚石，因为欧盟的基础是商品、服务、资金和人员的自由流动。


The UK’s European partners adamantly claim that these four freedoms are indivisible, and that if Britain wants to maintain free access to the continental market for its data processing and financial services, it must accept unlimited access to its labor market for Polish or Irish workers.	英国的欧洲伙伴国坚称上述四种自由不可分割，如果英国想要维持其数据处理和金融服务业对大陆市场的自由准入，那么就必须接受波兰或爱尔兰工人自由进入其劳动力��场。


Freedom of movement of workers is undoubtedly integral to the EU.	人员自由流动无疑是欧盟不可或缺的因素。


Indeed, the fundamental right to settle and earn one’s living in another country without asking for permission does not exist anywhere else in the world.	事实上，无需征得许可而在其他国家定居和谋生的基本权利在全球其他任何地方都是不存在的。


For millions, this right most fully embodies what the EU stands for.	对成百上千万人而言，上述权利最充分的体现了欧盟的价值观。


But Britain has made its choice, and the right question to ask now is whether strong economic links can be preserved without free movement of labor.	但英国已经做出了选择，现在的问题是能否在保持密切经济联系的同时控制人员的自由流动。


From an economic standpoint, the answer is yes: a deeply integrated market for goods, services, and capital does not require full labor mobility.	从经济的角度讲答案是肯定的：深度融合的商品、服务和资本市场并不需要劳动力的完全流动。


What is needed is only enough temporary mobility to accompany the integration of services markets.	必不可少的只是支撑统一服务市场的临时性人员流动。


In other words, freedom of movement of workers is politically essential within the EU, but economically dispensable when dealing with third countries.	换言之，人员自由流动在政治上对欧盟不可或缺，但涉及第三国关系时在经济上却是可以舍弃的。


An economic agreement with Britain does not need to include it.	与英国签署的经济协议不必非要包括人员自由流动。


The second constraint is of a different nature.	第二种限制因素性质不同。


Unlike a market for nails or screws, a market for financial or information services must be based on detailed legislation that ensures fair competition and protects customers.	与实体商品市场不同，金融或信息服务市场必须以确保公平竞争及消费者保护的详细的法规为基础。


A large part of the EU’s task is to prepare this legislation.	制定上述法规是欧盟的主要任务。


So the question here is how British producers can retain access to the EU market (and vice versa) if they are no longer party to the legislation.	因此问题就变成了如果英国制造商不再是法规制定者将如何继续进入欧盟市场（反之亦然）。


Solving this conundrum would be one of the main purposes of the continental partnership.	解决这一难题将是大陆伙伴关系的主要目的之一。


Through it, Britain would participate in a multilateral process of consultation on draft EU legislation and would have the right to raise concerns and propose amendments, so that the outcome of the process would remain as far as possible consensual.	在上述进程中，英国将参与欧盟立法草案的多边顾问进程，并有权提出关切的问题和修改意见，以确保进程的结果尽可能得到双方的认同。


Both sides would be politically committed to listening to the other.	双方都有政治义务聆听对方的心声。


The EU, however, would have the final say, so that its laws would apply and be enforced.	但欧盟将掌握最终发言权，从而确保其法律得到应用和执行。


To enjoy full access to the EU market, Britain would need to agree on a package of policies essential to the proper functioning of an integrated market: competition rules, consumer protection, and fundamental social rights, for example, and perhaps also minimum tax rules to avoid distortions of the type recently exemplified by Apple’s practices.	为享受欧盟市场的全面准入，英国将需要就保持统一市场正常运作的一揽子关键政策（包括如竞争规则、消费者保护和基本社会权利等）或许还有为避免不久前苹果做法所代表的扭曲的最低计税规则达成认同。


Britain would also need to contribute to the EU budget, from which development funds (the counterpart to single-market access) are delivered.	英国还需要向欧盟预算缴费，发展基金（单一市场准入的对立面）主要由欧盟预算提供。


Some object that the deal would be too harsh for Britain to accept.	有人反驳称这样的协议苛刻到让英国难以接受。


But would the UK be better off losing access to the market of its main trading partner?	但彻底失去主要贸易伙伴的市场准入是否是更好的选择？


Others worry that the EU would surrender its decision-making powers were it to consult with outsiders.	还有人担心如果征询外人的意见欧盟是否会交出其决策权。


But how would the few without a vote – Britain and others – dominate the many with a vote?	但我看不出不掌握投票权的少数国家——包括英国和其他几个国家在内——怎样才能主导有投票权的多数？


Still others claim that such an arrangement would concede too much to Britain, compelling other countries to aim at a similar status and causing the EU to unravel.	还有人称这样的安排会对英国做出太多让步，迫使其他国家瞄准类似的地位并造成欧盟解体。


But why would an EU member be better off abiding by rules and paying into the EU budget without having a vote on the design of policies?	但为什么遵守规则及缴纳欧盟预算却不掌握对政策设计的投票权对欧盟成员国更有好处？


And, far from undermining European integration, a continental partnership could support the consolidation of the EU’s core.	而且，与削弱欧盟一体化相去甚远的是，大陆伙伴关系可以支持欧盟核心力量的整合。


True, there would be a price to pay for everyone.	的确，所有人都将付出代价。


But it would be far lower than the price, in terms of lost prosperity and diminished global influence, of failing to create a continental partnership.	但这样的代价却比因未能构建大陆伙伴关系而丧失繁荣和全球影响力要小得多。


Brexit and the Balance of Power	英国退出和实力平衡


CAMBRIDGE – Britain joined what became the European Union in 1973.	剑桥—1973年，英国加入了日后的欧盟。


This year, on June 23, it will hold a referendum on whether to leave.	今年6月23日，英国将进行是否脱离的全民公决。


Should it?	应该这样做吗？


Current polls show a closely divided electorate.	最新民调显示选民意见十分接近。


Prime Minister David Cameron claims that the concessions he has won from Britain’s EU partners should lay to rest popular concerns about a loss of sovereignty to Brussels and an influx of foreign workers from Eastern Europe.	首相卡梅伦宣称他已经赢得英国欧盟伙伴国的让步，这应该消除公众对于向布鲁塞尔让渡主权和东欧工人涌入英国的担忧。


But Cameron’s Conservative Party and his own cabinet are deeply divided, while London’s populist mayor, Boris Johnson, has joined the supporters of British exit.	但卡梅伦的保守党及其自身的内阁也陷入了深深的分歧，而伦敦的民粹主义市长鲍里斯·约翰逊（Boris Johnson）已经加入支持英国退出阵营。


The question of the costs and benefits of British membership in the EU divides the British press as well.	英国的欧盟成员资格的成本和收益问题也让英国媒体一分为二。


Many mass-circulation publications support “Brexit,” whereas the financial press supports continued membership.	许多发行量很大的刊物支持“英国退出”，而财经媒体支持继续留在欧元区。


The Economist, for example, points out that some 45% of British exports go to other EU countries, and that the atmosphere for negotiating a post-Brexit trade deal would likely be frosty.	比如，《经济学人》指出，英国出口中有45%流向其他欧盟国家，而谈判英国退出后贸易协议的氛围相当严峻。


Moreover, the EU has made clear to non-members such as Norway and Switzerland that they can have full access to the single market only if they accept most of its rules, including the free movement of people, and contribute to the EU budget.	此外，欧盟已向挪威和瑞士等非成员国明确表示，要想进入欧盟单一市场，唯有接受其大部分规则，包括人员自由流动和为欧盟预算出资。


In other words, a Britain outside the Union would gain little in terms of “sovereignty”; on the contrary, it would lose its vote and influence over the terms of its participation in the single market.	换句话说，身处欧盟外的英国在“主权”方面不会获得多少收益； 相反，它将失去其参与单一市场条件的投票权和影响力。


Meanwhile, rival financial centers such as Paris and Frankfurt would seize the chance to establish rules that would help them win back business from London.	与此同时，作为竞争对手的金融中心，如巴黎和法兰克福，将抓住机会制定有助于它们从伦敦夺回业务的规则。


Another complication is political: the rise of nationalism in Scotland and the effect of Brexit on the survival of the United Kingdom.	另一个复杂问题是政治：苏格兰民族主义的兴起以及英国退出对英国生存的影响。


In 2014, Scotland voted in its own referendum to remain in the UK; but the nationalists won almost all of Scotland’s seats in the general election eight months later.	2014年，苏格兰进行了自己的全民公决，决定留在英国； 但在八个月后的大选中，民族主义者赢得了几乎所有苏格兰议席。


With Scottish opinion much more pro-European than in England, many believe that Brexit would lead to another referendum on independence.	苏格兰的民意远比英格兰更加亲欧，许多人认为英国退出将导致苏格兰再次进行独立公决。


Cameron could be remembered as the prime minister who helped break up the UK (and possibly Europe).	卡梅伦也许会因为p帮助英国（也许还有欧洲）分裂而被铭记的首相。


In the United States, President Barack Obama’s administration has stated clearly its belief that Britain and Europe are both stronger together.	在美国，总统奥巴马政府明确表示相信英国和欧洲携手才能共进。


Illusions of a special relationship with the US replacing the influence of Europe are mistaken.	用与美国的特殊关系取代欧洲影响的幻觉是错误的。


But the British people will weigh whether to support Brexit, and an American hand on the scale could be counter-productive.	但英国人将权衡是否支持英国退出，而美国大规模插手可能适得其反。


At the same time, in the words of Douglas Alexander, the former Labour shadow foreign secretary, “since the end of World War II, America has been the system operator of international order built on a strong, stable Transatlantic Alliance supported by the twin pillars of NATO and the EU.	与此同时，用前工党影子外交大臣道格拉斯·亚历山大（Douglas Alexander）的话说，“自二战结束以来，美国一直是基于强大而稳定的跨大西洋联盟的国际秩序的系统操作员，而支持这一跨大西洋联盟的两大支柱是北约和欧盟。


If Britain leaves the EU, America’s closest ally would be marginalized….and the whole European project at risk of unraveling at precisely the time new economic and security threats confront the West.”	如果英国脱离欧盟，美国的最紧密盟友将被边缘化……并且整个欧洲工程也可能分崩离析，而与此同时，西方正在面临新的经济和安全威胁。


It is no wonder that Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin would welcome Brexit and meddles in European countries’ domestic politics to try to weaken the EU.	”毫不奇怪，普京的克里姆林宫将欢迎英国退出，并参与欧洲各国国内政策以试图削弱欧盟。


The geopolitical consequences of Brexit might not appear immediately.	英国退出的地缘政治后果不会马上显露出来。


The EU might even temporarily pull together.	一开始，欧盟可能会变得更加紧密。


But there would be damage to Europe’s sense of mission and its soft power of attraction.	但这将危害欧洲的使命感及其吸引力软实力。


Ensuring financial stability and managing immigration would be much more difficult as well.	确保金融稳定和管理移民也将变得更加困难。


In addition to a revival of Scottish separatism, Britain’s inward turn in recent years could accelerate.	除了苏格兰分裂主义的复兴，英国最近几年中出现的内向（inward turn）也可能加速。


And over the longer run, the effects on the global balance of power and the liberal international order – in which Britain has a strong national interest – would be negative.	而在长期，对全球实力平衡和自由国际秩序——英国在其中有着强大的国家利益——的影响也有将是消极的。


When it acts as an entity, Europe is the largest economy in the world, and its population of nearly 500 million is considerably larger than America’s 325 million.	作为一个行动实体，欧洲是世界上最大的经济体，其近5亿的人口也显著高于美国的3. 25亿。


It has the world’s largest market, represents 17% of world trade, and dispenses half of the world’s foreign assistance.	它拥有世界上最大的市场，占世界贸易的17%，贡献世界对外援助的半壁江山。


It also has 27 universities ranked in the top 100 worldwide, and its creative industries contribute about 7% to its GDP.	它还拥有27所名列世界前一百位的大学，其创新产业创造了GDP的约70%。


American per capita income is higher, but in terms of human capital, technology, and exports, Europe is very much an economic peer.	美国人均收入更高，但在人力资本、技术和出口方面，欧洲都可以与美国一较高下。


In terms of military expenditure, Europe is second only to the US, accounting for 15% of the world total, compared to 12% for China and 5% for Russia.	在军事支出方面，欧洲仅次于美国，占世界总量的15%，而中国为12%，俄罗斯为5%。


Of course, that number is somewhat misleading, given Europe’s lack of military integration.	当然，这一数字有一些误导，因为欧洲的军事一体化程度较为欠缺。


France and Britain are the two major sources of European expeditionary power.	法国和英国是欧洲最主要的两支远征力量。


European and US resources are mutually reinforcing.	欧洲和美国的资源是相互强化的。


Direct investment in both directions is higher than with Asia, and US-European trade is more balanced than US trade with Asia.	双向直接投资都高于与亚洲的水平，而美国-欧洲贸易也比美国-亚洲贸易更加平衡。


At the cultural level, Americans and Europeans share the values of democracy and human rights more with each other than with any other world regions.	在文化层面，美国人和欧洲人有着共同的民主和人权价值，这一点强于世界其他任何地区。


Faced with a rising China, a declining but risk-inclined Russia, and the prospect of prolonged turmoil in the Middle East, close transatlantic cooperation will be crucial to maintaining a liberal international order over the long term.	面临崛起的中国、衰落但乐于冒险的俄罗斯，以及中东动荡延长的前景，紧密的跨大西洋合作将是保持长期自由国际秩序的关键。


Recognizing that Brexit, by weakening both Europe and Britain, would make a disorderly international system more likely, should tip the balance in favor of maintaining the status quo.	认识到英国退出将削弱欧洲和英国，从而让国际体系面临更大的失序风险，将有助于让天平向保持现状倾斜。


Brexit’s Impact on the World Economy	英国脱离欧盟对世界经济的影响


LONDON – The febrile behavior of financial markets ahead of the United Kingdom’s referendum on June 23 on whether to remain in the European Union shows that the outcome will influence economic and political conditions around the world far more profoundly than Britain’s roughly 2.4% share of global GDP might suggest.	发自伦敦 — — 金融市场在英国在 6 月 23 日决定是否继续留在欧盟的全民公决之前的动荡表现显示：这场事件的结果对世界各地经济和政治形势所造成的影响将远远超出英国占全球 GDP的约 2.


There are three reasons for this outsize impact.	4%份额 ，而造成这一巨大影响的原因有以下三点：


First, the “Brexit” referendum is part of a global phenomenon: populist revolts against established political parties, predominantly by older, poorer, or less-educated voters angry enough to tear down existing institutions and defy “establishment” politicians and economic experts.	首先，“脱盟（Brexit）”公投其实是一种全球性现象的组成部分：民粹主义对成熟政党体制的抵制，一大批年龄较大，经济状况较差或低学历选民的愤怒情绪被激发起来，足以推翻现行体制并抵制“体制内”政治家和经济专家。


Indeed, the demographic profile of potential Brexit voters is strikingly similar to that of American supporters of Donald Trump and French adherents of the National Front.	事实上，脱盟潜在支持者的人口构成状况与美国的唐纳德·特朗普粉丝以及法国国民阵线党的信徒存在着惊人的相似性。


Opinion polls indicate that British voters back the “Leave”campaign by a wide margin, 65% to 35%, if they did not complete high school, are over 60, or have “D, E” blue-collar occupations.	各项民意测验显示，支持“脱盟”运动的英国选民比例偏离幅度较大，从65%至35%都有，尤以未能完成高中，年逾 60 岁，或者从事“D、E类”蓝领工作的群体为高。


By contrast, university graduates, voters under 40, and members of the “A, B” professional classes plan to vote “Remain” by similar margins of 60% to 40% and higher.	相比之下，拥有大学学历者，40岁以下选民和从事“A、B类”职业的专业人士阶层则有60%至40%以上选择“留下”。


In Britain, the United States, and Germany, the populist rebellions are not only fueled by similar perceived grievances and nationalist sentiments, but also are occurring in similar economic conditions.	英美德三国的民粹主义回潮不仅受到相似的不满和民族主义情绪煽动，还也都发生在相近的经济条件下。


All three countries have returned to more or less full employment, with unemployment rates of around 5%.	三个国家都已或多或少地实现充分就业，失业率约为 5%。


But many of the jobs created pay low wages, and immigrants have recently displaced bankers as scapegoats for all social ills.	但许多工作岗位工资较低，而近期以来移民已经取代银行家成为了所有社会弊病的替罪羊。


The degree of mistrust of business leaders, mainstream politicians, and expert economists is evident in the extent to which voters are ignoring their warnings not to endanger the gradual restoration of prosperity by upending the status quo.	对商界领袖、 主流政治家和专家经济学家的不信任情绪已经相当明显，以至于选民都扭头忽略了他们关于颠覆现状将会危及复苏的警告。


In Britain, after three months of debate about Brexit, only 37% of voters agree that Britain would be worse off economically if it left the EU – down from 38% a year ago.	在英国，在针对脱盟问题辩论了三个月之后，只有37%的选民同意英国经济将在脱盟后变得更糟——比一年前的38%还少。


In other words, all the voluminous reports – by the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the World Bank, and the British government and the Bank of England – unanimously warning of significant losses from Brexit have been disregarded.	换句话说，国际货币基金组织、 经合组织、 世界银行，英国政府以及英格兰银行等机构撰写了汗牛充栋的报告，异口同声地警告退盟将引发重大损失，最终却遭到了人们的漠视。


Rather than trying to rebut the experts’ warnings with detailed analyses, Boris Johnson, the leader of the Leave campaign, has responded with bluster and rhetoric identical to Trump’s anti-politics: “Who is remotely apprehensive about leaving?	脱盟运动的领袖鲍里斯·约翰逊（Boris Johnson）也没有试图用详尽的分析来反驳专家的警告，而是用咆哮以及与特朗普反政治宣言类似的口号来回击：“谁还对脱盟心存顾虑？


Oh believe me, it will be fine.”	相信我，一切都会没事的。


In other words, the so-called experts were wrong in the past, and they are wrong now.	”言下之意就是这帮所谓的专家过去错了，现在也对不了。


This kind of frontal attack on political elites has been surprisingly successful in Britain, judging by the latest Brexit polling.	最近的脱盟民意调查显示这种对政治精英的迎面袭击在英国出人意料地大受欢迎。


But only after the votes are counted will we know whether opinions expressed to pollsters predicted actual voting behavior.	但只有在计票完成后我们才会知道人们对民意测验专家说的话是否能和实际的投票行为对得上。


This is the second reason why the Brexit result will echo around the world. The referendum will be the first big test of whether it is the experts and markets, or the opinion polls, that have been closer to the truth about the strength of the populist upsurge.	脱盟公投的结果将在全球引发回响的第二个原因是公投将会是首场大型测试，看专家/市场和民意调查两者谁才能更正确地认识民粹主义热潮的背后动力。


For now, political pundits and financial markets on both sides of the Atlantic assume, perhaps complacently, that what angry voters tell pollsters does not reflect how they will actually vote.	目前大西洋两岸的政治学者和金融市场也许会过分自信地假设愤怒的选民告诉民调机构的话并不能反映他们实际会如何投票。


Analysts and investors have consistently assigned low odds to insurgent victories: in late May, betting markets and computerized models put the probabilities of Trump’s election and of Brexit at only around 25%, despite the fact that opinion polls showed almost 50% support for both.	分析师和投资者一贯依然都认定脱盟胜利是低概率事件：在五月下旬，博彩市场和电脑推演模型都只把特朗普胜选和脱盟成功概率定在25%左右，尽管民意调查显示两个事件都获得了近乎50%的支持率。


If Brexit wins on June 23, the low odds accorded by experts and financial markets to successful populist revolts in America and Europe will immediately look suspect, while the higher probabilities suggested by opinion polls will gain greater credibility.	假如 6 月 23 日脱盟成功，专家和金融市场对欧美民粹主义回潮的低概率判断立刻会显得站不住脚，而民意调查所提出的更高概率将呈现更大的可信度。


This is not because US voters will be influenced by Britain; of course they will not be.	这不是因为美国选民将受到英国的影响； 他们肯定不会的。


But, in addition to all the economic, demographic, and social similarities, opinion polling in the US and Britain now face very similar challenges and uncertainties, owing to the breakdown of traditional political allegiances and dominant two-party systems.	但在所有经济，人口结构和社会的相似性之外，民意调查如今在英美两国都面临着非常类似的挑战和不确定性，因为传统政治忠诚和两党主导体系都在分崩离析。


Statistical theory even allows us to quantify how expectations about the US presidential election should shift if Brexit wins in Britain.	统计理论甚至令我们能够量化分析出美国总统选举的期望将如何跟随英国脱盟成功而发生改变。


Suppose, for the sake of simplicity, that we start by giving equal credibility to opinion polls showing Brexit and Trump with almost 50% support and expert opinions, which gave them only a 25% chance.	为简单起见，假设我们同时相信民调显示民众对脱盟和特朗普当选存在近50%的支持率与专家认为只有25%成功率这两种观点。


Now suppose that Brexit wins.	现在假设脱盟获胜。


A statistical formula called Bayes’ theorem then shows that belief in opinion polls would increase from 50% to 67%, while the credibility of expert opinion would fall from 50% to 33%.	一个称为贝叶斯定理的统计公式将显示民众对民意测验中的信任度会从 50%增至 67%，而专家意见的信誉则由50%下降到33%。


This leads to the third, and most worrying, implication of the British vote.	这将导致英国公投的第三次也是最令人担忧的影响。


If Brexit wins in a country as stable and politically phlegmatic as Britain, financial markets and businesses around the world will be shaken out of their complacency about populist insurgencies in the rest of Europe and the US.	如果脱盟在英国这么一个稳定和政治冷漠的国家都能实现，金融市场和世界各地的企业都会在欧洲其他地区和美国的民粹主义回潮忐忑不安。


These heightened market concerns will, in turn, change economic reality.	这些市场担忧的加剧将反过来改变经济现实。


As in 2008, financial markets will amplify economic anxiety, breeding more anti-establishment anger and fueling still-higher expectations of political revolt.	正如在2008 年那样，金融市场会放大经济焦虑，助长更多的反体制愤怒以及对政治反抗的更高期望。


The threat of such contagion means a Brexit vote could be the catalyst for another global crisis.	这种危机蔓延的威胁意味着脱盟公投可能是另一场全球危机的催化剂。


This time, however, the workers who lose their jobs, the pensioners who lose their savings, and the homeowners who are trapped in negative equity will not be able to blame “the bankers.”	然而这次那些失去工作的工人、 失去储蓄的退休者和负资产业主都无法归罪于“银行家”。


Those who vote for populist upheavals will have no one but themselves to blame when their revolutions go wrong.	当革命最终走入歧途时，那些投票支持民粹主义剧变的人就只能怪罪自己了。


Indeed, it is possible that the EU would adopt a tough mercantilist stance: If you want privileged access, you should stay in the club.	事实上，欧盟可能会将采取强硬的重商主义姿态：如果你想享受特权渠道，就得��在圈子里。


Will America Win or Lose From Brexit?	英国退出对美国的利弊


WASHINGTON, DC – The British vote to leave the European Union has shaken world financial markets.	华盛顿—英国投票脱离欧盟震撼了全球金融市场。


The immediate and medium-term prospects for economic growth in the United Kingdom are severely diminished, and the impact on the rest of Europe will be negative.	英国即期和中期经济增长前景受到严重破坏，对欧洲其余部分的影响也将十分消极。


Some of the obvious political winners from Brexit are people who do not like Western Europe and what it stands for.	显而易见的英国退出政治赢家包括不喜欢西欧的人和不喜欢现状的人。


Ironically, the United States – Europe’s greatest ally and the EU’s largest trading partner – may also end up as a beneficiary, though not if Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, wins the presidential election in November.	讽刺的是，美国——欧洲最大的盟友、欧盟最大的贸易伙伴——最后也可能从中获益，但如果推定共和党提名人唐纳德·特朗普赢得11月总统大选的话，美国就可能无法获得好处。


Britain has a population of just over 65 million people and what was, at least until Thursday, the world’s fifth-largest national economy, with annual GDP totaling nearly $3 trillion.	英国人口略多于6,500万，至少到星期四为止，它是全世界第五大国家经济体，年GDP总量接近3万亿美元。


In the context of a $75 trillion global economy, Britain’s is a relatively small, open one that relies heavily on foreign trade – annual exports are typically in the range of 28%-30% of economic activity.	在75万亿美元规模的全球经济中，英国其中一个规模相对较小的开放经济体，严重依赖对外贸易——每年出口常常占经济活动的28—30%。


That is now likely to change.	如今，这一局面可能发生变化。


The EU accounts for about half of Britain’s exports, and the prospects for continued full market access are dim.	欧盟占了英国出口的一半左右，而继续获得完全的市场准入的前景渺茫。


Trade in goods may be affected, but the impact on exports of services – including financial services – will be more severe.	商品贸易可能受到影响，但对服务业包括金融服务业出口的冲击将更加严重。


In principle, Britain could now negotiate a great deal of market access, but this would almost certainly require accepting rules made in Brussels – which is just what the British voted against.	理论上，英国现在可以就大量市场准入问题进行谈判，但几乎肯定需要接受布鲁塞尔所制定的规则——而这正是英国选民所投票反对的。


Growth in the UK will consequently be lower and for a long period of time.	因此，英国增长将在相当长的一段时间里保持低迷。


The direct impact on the world economy is likely to be limited by the fact that other countries will to some extent gain from Britain’s loss.	对世界经济的直接影响可能因为其他国家或多或少从英国的损失中获益这一事实而显得 有限。


For example, the UK was until recently one of the top destinations for foreign direct investment, precisely because companies saw it as a good base from which to sell into the rest of Western Europe.	比如，到目前为止，英国是外国直接投资最大的目的国之一，而这正是因为公司将英国视为进入西欧其余部分的理想基地。


The UK’s attractiveness – and the creation of good jobs that resulted from it – will now decline.	英国的吸引力——以及由此带来的新增优质工作岗位——现在将会下降。


The big political loser is obviously the EU itself, which, without one-sixth of its current GDP, will fall in the economic rankings from just below the US to around – or some would say below – the level of China (measured using current exchange rates).	整治大输家显然是欧盟本身，失去了当前GDP的六分之一，欧盟在世界经济中的排位将从仅次于美国下降到约等于——有人说将不如——中国（用当前汇率衡量）。


The precise policy reaction of EU leaders is unclear; but, given the inept way the eurozone crisis has been handled since 2010, a return to more dynamic growth seems unlikely.	欧盟领导人会采取怎样的具体政策反应尚不清楚； 但是，从2010年欧元区危机处置失当的情况看，恢复更有活力的增长不太可能。


A weaker Europe is bad for the world – and people like Vladimir Putin who hold democracy in contempt are undoubtedly smiling today.	疲软的欧洲对世界不利——而普京等蔑视民主的人今天毫无疑问在微笑。


But many authoritarian regimes are funded by the export of natural resources.	但许多极权政权的资金来自自然资源出口。


Slower global growth and consequently lower oil prices are not good for countries such as Putin’s Russia and Iran.	全球增长放缓及由此导致的低油价对于普京和俄罗斯和伊朗等国家来说并非好事。


And China remains an economy where growth is very much based on the export of manufactured goods to richer countries, so a slowdown in the UK and the EU does not favor the Chinese, either.	中国经济增长仍然主要基于向富裕国家出口制造品，因此英国和欧盟放缓对中国也是不利的。


In geopolitical and economic terms, the US is potentially the biggest winner from the disintegration of the EU.	在地缘政治和经济方面，美国是欧盟解体最大的潜在赢家。


The US rose to global predominance as Europeans fought one another and their empires declined.	随着欧洲人自相残杀、帝国纷纷衰落，美国崛起成为全球霸主。


The post-1945 US role was challenged first by the Soviet Union, which, for a time, posed a real technological challenge.	1945年后，美国的角色首先受到苏联的挑战——一度构成了真正的技术挑战。


Today, Russia has a small – and shrinking – economy and a population in decline.	如今俄罗斯经济规模小——并且正在收缩——人口也在下降。


Next up was 1980s Japan, with its innovative management practices and well-run companies.	接下来是20世纪80年代的日本，其凭借的是创新管理实践和经营出色的公司。


Japan is much richer than Russia today, but it, too, remains mired in economic malaise and may be trapped in a perpetual downward demographic spiral.	如今，日本比俄罗斯富裕得多，但它也陷入了经济萎靡，可能陷入持久的人口下降螺旋。


Leaders of the EU have, in recent times, seen themselves as a rival to the US on the global stage.	最近一段时间，欧洲领导人自视为美国在全球舞台上的对手。


The question now is which parts of Europe will stick together and on what basis.	现在的问题是欧洲的哪些部分可以凭借怎样的基础坚持下去。


Prosperity is based on people and ideas.	繁荣的基础是人和思想。


Who can attract the most talented people, educate them and their children, and give as many individuals as possible the opportunity to work productively?	谁能吸引最有才华的人，教育他们和他们的孩子，并给予尽量多的人产生工作成果的机会？


The US has some serious problems, but absorbing immigrants and encouraging creativity have been among its main strengths for more than 200 years.	美国有一些严重问题，但200多年来吸引移民和鼓励创新一直是其主要优势。


The UK has also been a relatively open society in recent decades, and many of its younger people would like that to continue.	近几十年中，英国也是一个相对开放的社会，许多英国年轻人希望这一状况继续下去。


But older people, living outside large urban areas, have voted instead to build barriers and – to a significant extent – attempt to close off the country from the rest of the world.	但生活在大城市地区之外的年纪教长的人反而支持竖起藩篱并——在相当大的程度上——尝试将英国与世界其他部分隔离。


The politics of the US presidential election are obviously quite different from those of the UK’s Brexit debate.	英国总统选举政治显然与英国的英国退出争论大相径庭。


But Trump is offering a strikingly similar vision to that of Nigel Farage, head of the UK Independence Party – and on Friday both of them seemed equally delighted with the outcome of the referendum.	但特朗普提出了与英国独立党党魁法拉奇（Nigel Farage）惊人地相似的愿景，而在星期五，两人都对英国公投的结果表现出同样的欣喜。


The choice that Americans will make in November now comes into clearer focus.	如今，11月美国所要做出的选择焦点更加明确了。


Will voters heed the siren song of Trump – and do great damage to the US economy and to the world by embracing a self-destructive effort to wall themselves off from the world?	选民会听从特朗普的诱惑——通过接受自我毁灭式的闭关锁国政策给美国经济和世界造成严重伤害吗？


Or will they choose prosperity and a leading global role?	还是会选择繁荣和全球领导角色？


Brexit’s Questions for Europe	欧洲的英国退出问题


MADRID – In three months, British citizens will have to decide whether or not to remain in the European Union.	马德里—三个月后，英国公民必须决定是否留在欧盟。


But they are not the only ones who must consider their political future.	但他们不是唯一必须考虑政治未来的一群人。


The upcoming referendum also poses two important questions for the rest of Europe.	即将到来的全民公决也给欧洲其他国家带来了两个重要问题。


The first question is which outcome Europeans would and should prefer.	第一个问题是欧洲人将偏好和应该偏好哪个结果。


Some have already written off the United Kingdom, claiming that a partner that would consider leaving is not the kind of partner they want, anyway.	一些人已经把英国一笔勾销，声称考虑离开的伙伴已经不是他们想要的伙伴了。


Whether or not one shares this opinion, the point is worth studying.	不管你是否赞同这一观点，它的要点值得思考。


Indeed, it would be naive not to ask whether retaining a member that is challenging the very principle of European integration would really be in the EU’s best interests.	事实上，不问一问保留一个挑战欧洲一体化原则的成员是否真的符合欧盟的最佳利益是幼稚的。


The reality is that the British public debate on sovereignty will not end when the votes are counted.	现实是，英国公众对主权问题的争论不会因为投票而结束。


After all, even if the majority says “yes” to the EU, a share of the population – a substantial one, according to the polls – will remain convinced that Brexit would have been much better for the UK.	毕竟，即使大部分人对欧盟投“是”票，一定比例——根据民调，这个比例不小——的人口仍然认为英国退出对英国更有利。


Given this, debates and negotiations involving the UK and its European partners will continue to feature deep disagreements over the restrictions and conditions that accompany membership in the EU.	基于此，英国及其欧洲伙伴的争论和谈判将继续在围绕欧盟成员资格的限制和条件上存在深刻分歧。


For years to come, the British will demand a constant drumbeat of reaffirmation that they made the right choice.	在多年的时间里，英国人将要求不断地确认他们做出了正确的选择。


This is an important consideration that should not be dismissed out of hand.	这是一个重要的考虑，不应该置之不理。


But it should not lead the rest of Europe to favor Brexit.	但也不应该因此导致欧洲其他地区偏向英国退出。


Indeed, if the majority of British voters decided to abandon the EU, everyone would suffer the consequences.	事实上，如果大部分英国选民决定放弃欧盟，那么每个人都要承受后果。


For starters, Brexit would deal a major economic blow to the UK and the EU alike.	首先，英国退出将给英国和欧盟都带来巨大的经济打击。


But that is not all.	但这不是全部。


It would also weaken the security, foreign policy, and international standing of both parties.	英国退出还会削弱双方的安全、外交政策和国际地位。


In the face of a large-scale migration crisis, conflict on Europe’s borders, and the brutality of the Islamic State – security threats that affect all Europeans, and that cannot be confronted by any country alone – the need for a common EU foreign and security policy is clearer than ever.	在面临大规模移民危机、欧洲边界冲突和残忍的伊斯兰国的情况下——这些安全威胁影响全欧洲，不可能由任何国家单独面对——共同的欧盟外交和安全政策的必要性比任何时候都要明确。


Yet European countries continue to struggle to reach consensus on foreign-policy measures – a failure that is undermining their international influence.	但欧洲国家依旧难以就外交政策手段形成一致——这一失败正在危及它们的国际影响。


Indeed, after spending several years focused on coping with economic crises, the EU’s influence and leadership in certain international decision-making arenas have waned.	事实上，多年来欧盟的主要精力都花在了应对经济危机上，其在某些国际决策竞技场上的影响力和领导力有所消失。


Meanwhile, member countries – including the UK, Europe’s greatest military power, which has traditionally been committed to international-minded policies – have been downsizing their defense expenditures.	与此同时，欧盟成员国——包括欧洲最大军事力量英国，传统上它 一直致力于国际视角的政策——一直在削减防务开支。


By intensifying doubts about European integration, Brexit would further reduce the willingness of EU members to cooperate, resulting in the deterioration of both their security and their remaining international influence.	英国退出将加剧对欧洲一体化的疑虑。 进一步降低欧盟成员国的合作意愿，导致安全和剩余国际影响力下降。


For Europe, the loss of such an important security partner would clearly be detrimental.	对欧洲来说，失去如此重要的安全伙伴显然是不利的。


But the UK ��� left to confront global threats on its own, with less means and fewer partners – would be more vulnerable as well.	但英国——它必须因此单独面对全球威胁，手段和伙伴都会减少——也会变得更加脆弱。


The second question that the referendum poses for Europeans is the same one that the British are addressing: Is EU membership worthwhile?	全民公决给欧洲人带来的第二个问题和英国正在解决的问题一样：欧盟成员资格值得追求吗？


Centrifugal forces in the EU are stronger today than ever before, not only across the English Channel, but throughout the continent.	如今，欧盟中的离心力比以往任何时候都要大，不但英吉利海峡两岸是如此，欧洲大陆也是如此。


Many countries have political movements and parties – some stronger than others – that are seeking to “recover” elements of sovereignty, to the detriment of common action.	许多国家都存在寻求“恢复”主权要素的政治运动和政党——尽管势头不尽相同——给共同行动在成掣肘。


Some governments have even taken unilateral measures contrary to EU decisions.	一些政府甚至采取了与欧盟决定相悖的单边措施。


Simply put, the lack of solidarity among member states has fueled efforts to weaken the values and principles on which the EU was founded, with many favoring a view that holds out the nation-state as the solution to every problem.	简言之，成员国之间缺乏团结助长了削弱作为欧盟立盟基础的价值观和原则，许多人支持将民族国家作为一切问题解决办法的观点。


Brexit would reinforce this trend, bolstering Europe’s nationalist and Euroskeptic forces.	英国退出将强化这一趋势，提振欧洲民族主义和欧元怀疑派力量。


With a presidential election in France and federal elections in Germany next year, the potential political boost to anti-European forces could have serious long-term consequences.	明年，法国和德国将举行大选，反欧洲力量可能在政治上得势或许将带来严重的长期影响。


In this sense, Germany’s recent regional elections should serve as a warning.	从这个意义上讲，德国的最新地区选举是一个警告。


Let us be clear: The view driving these movements – that the EU is at the root of Europe’s myriad problems, from economic hardship to the refugee crisis, and that withdrawal (or unilateral action) is the only way to resolve them – is patently false.	必须弄清楚：推动这些运动的观点——欧盟是从经济困难到难民危机的欧洲诸多问题的根源，退盟（或单边行动）是解决这些问题的唯���办法——大错特错。


The problems we are facing did not arise because of European integration.	我们所面临的问题不是因为欧洲一体化而产生的。


Global economic challenges and the flood of migrants and asylum-seekers will continue to reach Europe’s borders, whether it is united or not.	全球经济挑战和移民和寻求避难者浪潮将继续朝欧洲边界涌来，不管欧洲是不是统一。


What matters is how Europe responds to them.	重要的是欧洲如何应对它们。


The rationale for integration is that collective action is far more effective than unilateral efforts.	一体化的理由是集体行动远比单边行动有效。


Of course, it would not take long for the folly in the nationalistic approach to become apparent.	当然，要不了多久，民族主义方针的愚蠢性就会表露无遗。


But the damage caused by then could be severe.	但它们造成的危害可能十分严重。


Given this, campaigns for European integration should not be limited to a rote affirmation of the benefits the EU has brought to its members, much less to efforts to appease Euroskeptics.	因此，欧洲一体化运动不应该局限于机械地重申欧盟给其成员国带来的好处，更不能安抚欧元怀疑派。


Rather, the EU should be reaffirmed as an attractive political project.	相反，欧盟应该作为有吸引力的政治工程得到重申。


This delicate moment for the EU demands decisive progress toward a more effective, more integrated, and more desirable union.	这一欧盟的微妙时刻需要欧洲果断朝更有效、更一体化、更令人渴望的联盟迈进。


Brexit in Context	英国脱盟的大背景


MILAN – I do not believe that foreigners contribute usefully by issuing strong opinions about how a country’s citizens, or those of a larger unit like the European Union, should decide when faced with an important political choice.	发自米兰——我从不认为外国人（注：作者是美国人）在当一个国家的公民（或像欧盟这类较大实体中的民众）面对一个重要政治选择时所发表的强烈意见会产生多少有用的贡献。


Our insights, based on international experience, may sometimes be helpful; but there should never be any confusion about the asymmetry of roles.	我们构建于国际经验之上的见解有时会有所帮助； 但也不应混淆了各人所扮演角色的不对称性。


This is particularly true of the British referendum on whether to remain in the EU.	这点在英国是否继续留在欧盟的全民公决上显得尤为突出。


Just days before the vote, the outcome is too close to call, and there appear to be enough undecided voters to tip it either way.	距离表决仅有数日，正反两派势均力敌，也存在着足够数量的中间派选民来影响其最终走向。


But, with political and social fragmentation extending well beyond Europe, outsiders may be able to add some perspective on what is really at issue.	但由于这场与政治和社会的分裂已经远远扩展到了欧洲以外，我们这些外国人也许能够对事情的重点部分补充一些观点。


First, it will come as no surprise that, in terms of the distribution of income, wealth, and the costs and benefits of forced structural change, growth patterns in most of the developed world have been problematic for the past 20 years.	首先，毫无疑问，在收入，财富的分配以及被动性结构变革的成本和收益方面，大多数发达国家的增长模式在过去20年间都是存在问题的。


We know that globalization and some aspects of digital technology (particularly those related to automation and disintermediation) have contributed to job and income polarization, placing sustained pressure on the middle class in every country.	此外我们也都会意识到全球化和某些数字化技术——尤其是与自动化和去中介化（disintermediation）相关的——导致了工作和收入的两极分化，对各个国家的中产阶级都造成了持续的压力。


Second, Europe’s ongoing crisis (more like a chronic condition) has kept growth far too low and unemployment – especially youth unemployment – unacceptably high.	其二，欧洲的危机（更像是某种慢性病）导致长期低增长以及高得惊人的失业率——尤其是青年失业问题。


And Europe is not alone. In the United States, while the formal unemployment rate has fallen, large-scale failures in terms of inclusiveness have fueled disenchantment – on both the left and the right – at growth patterns and policies that seem to benefit those at the top disproportionately.	这不仅仅是欧洲的问题，在美国，虽然名义失业率有所下降，但大规模的就业人口流失问题令人们——无论是左派还是右派——也对那些看似过分偏袒社会顶端阶层的经济增长模式和政策甚为不满。


Given the magnitude of recent economic shocks, developed countries’ citizens might be less unhappy were there evidence of a concerted effort – based on genuine burden sharing – to address these issues.	在近期的经济冲击之下，如果能看到各方共同努力来解决这些问题的迹象——且基于真诚合理的责任分担——发达国家的公民们可能会感觉没那么失望。


In the context of Europe, that would mean a multinational effort.	而在欧洲的语境下，这就意味着多国协同努力。


But, for the most part – and again throughout the developed world – effective responses have been missing.	无奈大部分的有效应对措施都依然无影无踪——这在整个发达世界已经不是第一次了。


Central banks have been left largely alone with objectives that exceed the capacity of their tools and instruments, while elements of the elite wait for a chance to blame monetary policymakers for weak economic performance.	各大中央银行都被指派了一些其手中工具和手段都无力达成的政策目标，而一部分精英则在等待机会将经济表现疲弱的罪责推到货币政策制定者身上。


In the face of non-monetary policy responses that are somewhere between deficient and non-existent relative to the magnitude of the challenges we face, the natural response in a democracy is to replace the decision-makers and try something different.	当需要针对某些重大挑战作出非货币政策性反应，且这种反应要么不做，要么或多或少存在些缺陷的情况下，一个民主体制所作出的自然反应就是更换一批决策者并尝试些不同的策略。


After all, democracy is a system for experimentation, as well for the expression of citizens’ will.	毕竟民主就是一个反复实验以及让公民表达意愿的体系。


Of course, the “new” may not be better and could be worse – perhaps significantly worse.	当然“新的”不一定就是好的，可能会更糟——甚至可能糟糕得多。


Third, the EU is confronting, in more severe form, a problem facing much of the developed world: powerful forces operating beyond the control of elected officials are shaping citizens’ lives, leaving them feeling powerless.	第三，欧盟面对的是大多数发达国家所面临的一个问题，且程度更为严重：有股凌驾在民选官员权力之上的强大力量塑造了公民的生活，令他们产生了深深的无力感。


But while all countries must deal with the challenges of globalization and technological change, important elements of governance in the EU are beyond the reach of democratic institutions, at least those that people understand and relate to.	即便所有国家都必须应对全球化和技术变革的挑战，但欧盟的重要治理元素却是超出民主体制之外的，至少那些人们理解和接触的方面就是如此。


This is not to say that local governance is problem-free.	这并不是说各国自治就不存在问题。


It isn’t. Corruption, special interests, and sheer incompetence are common problems.	它也存在着腐败，特殊利益集团和完全失能等常见问题。


But democratic governance is in principle fixable, and institutional defenses and countermeasures do exist.	但民主的治理在原则上是可修复的，也确实存在体制性的防御手段和针对性措施。


The situation in the eurozone is particularly unstable, owing to citizens’ growing alienation from a distant, technocratic elite; the absence of conventional economic adjustment mechanisms (exchange rates, inflation, public investment, and so on); and tight limits on fiscal transfers, which send powerful signals about the real boundaries of cohesion.	欧元区的情况尤为不稳定，一方面公民与那些相隔遥远的技术官僚精英日益疏远； 另一方面缺乏汇率，通货膨胀和公共投资等常规经济调整机制；


Brexit is a part of this larger drama.	英国“脱盟”就是这场宏大闹剧的其中一幕。


It is primarily about governance, not economics.	它的重点在于治理而非经济。


From a strictly economic point of view, the risks for both the United Kingdom and the rest of the EU are almost entirely on the downside.	从严格的经济学角度来看，英国和欧盟其他的风险几乎完全处于下行趋势。


But if that was all there was to the issue, the outcome would be a foregone conclusion in favor of staying.	但如果这就是问题的全部的���，留在欧盟就会是早就确定的事了。


The real issue – effective and inclusive self-governance – is not an easy one to tackle anywhere, because forces such as technological disruption do not respect national boundaries.	真正的问题——有效和包容性的自我治理——在任何地方都不是一个简单的问题，因为技术性分化这样的力量根本不在意什么国界。


In part, Britons are voting on whether their capacity to navigate in these turbulent waters is enhanced or diminished by continued EU membership.	英国人现在表决的是留在欧盟能否增强或减弱自身在这些动荡水域中导航的能力。


But a more fundamental question of political identity is also at stake – just as it was in Scotland’s independence referendum in 2014.	但政治认同这个更根本问题也是考虑因素——正如2014年苏格兰独立公投所体现的那样。


Some Britons (perhaps even a majority), and many other EU citizens, still want future generations to think of themselves as Europeans (albeit with a proud British, German, or Spanish origin), and are prepared to take another shot at reforming Europe’s governance structures. And they are right to think that the world would be a far better place with a united, democratic Europe as a major force for both stability and change.	一些英国人（或许甚至是大多数）和许多其他欧盟国家公民仍然会希望自己的下一代（尽管拥有一个令人自豪的英国，德语或西班牙血统）自认为欧洲人并准备好再次改革欧洲的治理结构，也有理由认定如果有一个团结民主的欧洲作为实现稳定和变革的主要力量的话这个世界将变得更为美好。


That is my hope, though it may border on wishful thinking.	这是我的希望，尽管可能更多是一厢情愿。


Regardless of the outcome of the Brexit referendum (like many outsiders, I hope Britain votes to stay and advocates for reform from within), the British vote, along with similar strong centrifugal political trends elsewhere, should bring about a major rethink of European governance structures and institutional arrangements. The goal should be to restore a sense of control and responsibility to the electorates.	但无论“脱盟”公投的结果如何（跟许多局外人一样，我希望英国人能投票决定留下来，并提倡从内部启动改革），英国的投票，以及在其他地区展现的类似强离心政治趋势，应该引起对欧洲治理结构和制度安排的主要反思，其目标应该是重建民众的控制感和对选区负责的精神。


That would be a good outcome in the long run.	从长远来看这会是一个好的结果。


It would require inspired leadership from all corners of Europe – including government, business, organized labor, and civil society as well as a renewed commitment to integrity, inclusiveness, responsibility, and generosity.	它将要求在欧洲的各个层面——包括政府、商界，劳工组织和公民社会——都展现出卓越的领导能力，同时重新致力于诚信、包容，责任和慷慨。


That is a tall order; but it is not an impossible one to fill.	这是一个艰巨的任务;但它并不是一个不可能完成的难题。


Britain’s Moment of Truth	英国的关键时刻


BRUSSELS – Britain’s vote to leave the European Union has put the country’s role in Europe in limbo.	发自布鲁塞尔——英国投票脱离欧盟的举措令该国在欧洲所扮演的角色日益弱化。


Every day that passes deepens the impasse between the United Kingdom and the EU and makes the future more uncertain.	时间每流逝一天，英国与欧盟之间的僵局就恶化一点，使未来增加更多的不确定性。


The EU leadership would like to move the process along and has called on the UK to immediately take steps to do so, as outlined in Article 50, the member-withdrawal provision of the Treaty of Lisbon.	欧盟领导人希望尽快依照《里斯本条约》的第50条（成员国退出条款）开始走流程，也敦促英国方面从速照此办理。


The UK side is in disarray and first must choose a new leader now that Prime Minister David Cameron has announced his resignation.	英国这边则是一片混乱，首要解决的是在首相卡梅伦宣布辞职后选择一个新的领导者。


But most British politicians have come to accept the outcome of the “Brexit” referendum, and that the will of the voters must now be carried out in a manner that best upholds Britain’s national interests.	不过英国政界大部分人都已经坦然接受了脱欧公投的结果，当务之急就是以最能维护英国国家利益的方式来实现选民这这一意愿。


Because the EU’s internal market has always been a key priority for the UK, one widely discussed option, which has cross-party support, is the so-called the “Norway model”: membership in the European Economic Area (EEA).	由于欧盟内部市场一直是英国的重中之重，其中一个得到跨党派支持并进行了广泛讨论的选项就是采取所谓“挪威模式”：成为欧洲经济区协定（European Economic Area）的成员国。


Under the EEA arrangement, Norway (along with Iceland) has full, unfettered access to the EU’s single market, including for financial services.	根据欧洲经济区协定的安排，挪威（以及冰岛）拥有全部且不受阻碍地进入欧洲单一市场的权限，其中包括金融服务。


But access to the internal market also requires EEA members to accept full freedom of movement not only for goods, services, and capital, but also for workers.	但进入欧盟内部市场同时也需要欧洲经济区成员国接受来自欧盟侧的自由流入，不仅包括商品，服务和资本，还包括劳动者。


Would the Norway option be better for Britain than full EU membership?	那么挪威选项比欧盟成员国资格更好？


A simple thought experiment might help: go back four decades and assume that France had vetoed UK membership in the EU, and that the UK had joined the EEA instead.	一个简单的逻辑推演可以帮助我们理解：试想四十年前法国否决了英国的欧盟成员国资格，而英国转而加入欧洲经济区。


Under this scenario, the Brexit referendum would have been on whether the UK should remain in the EEA.	那么在这种情况下，脱欧公投就变成了决定英国是否应留在欧洲经济区内。


Would the arguments offered by this hypothetical “Leave” campaign have been any different?	假设也会有一场“脱区”运动，其论据又能有何不同？


The real Leave campaign’s arguments focused on three issues: the UK’s contributions to the EU budget, free movement for workers, and national sovereignty.	真实的脱欧运动将论点集中在三个议题上：英国对欧盟的预算贡献，自由流动的劳动者，以及国家主权。


Let’s consider them in turn.	现在让我们轮流来检视这几点：


The Leave campaign argued that the money the UK contributes to the EU budget as a member state could be better spent at home.	脱欧运动主张说与其作为一个成员国向欧盟贡献预算，不如把这笔钱更合理地花在本国身上。


This same argument would apply against EEA membership.	然而同样的论点也适用欧洲经济区成员。


In fact, the UK’s financial contribution to the EU is actually smaller, relative to its national income, than Norway’s under the EEA.	事实上相对其国民收入来说，英国对欧盟的财政贡献其实比经济区下的挪威还小。


The Leave campaign also claimed that free movement of labor heightens the supposed dangers of terrorism and higher unemployment for British workers.	脱欧运动还声称，劳动力的自由流动还加剧了传闻中的恐怖主义威胁，令英国本土工人的失业率走高。


But the provisions governing labor mobility in the EU apply to Norway and all EEA countries as well.	但在欧盟关于劳动力流动的规定也同样适用于挪威和所有欧洲经济区国家。


To the extent that freedom of movement was the key reason for leaving the EU, the Norway model would be equally unacceptable.	如果说迁徙自由是离开欧盟的关键原因，那么挪威模式也同样是无法接受的。


This brings us to the Leave campaign’s third argument and central theme: “getting back control” of the rules and regulations governing Britain’s economy.	这给我们引出了脱欧运动的第三个论据和核心主题：“重夺对英国经济的控制权”。


This objective would be an even stronger argument against EEA membership than it was against EU membership.	然而这个目标对欧洲经济区成员国资格的破坏性可比欧盟要大。


Under the EEA, the UK would still have to abide by the rules and regulations set in Brussels, but it would have far less say in their creation than it does as an EU member.	根据经济区协议，英国仍然得服从布鲁塞尔总部制定的相关规则，但在制定这些规则时的发言权要比作为欧盟成员国更少。


In fact, within the EU, Britain had considerable influence over financial services, the most important industry in its economy.	事实上，在欧盟内部，英国在金融服务业规则的制定上享有相当大的影响力，而该行业正是其经济中最重要的产业。


“Getting back control” was also directed against the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg, whose judgments, by convention, have precedence over judgments by national courts.	“重夺控制权”的矛头同时也直指位于卢森堡的欧洲法院，按照欧盟公约规定，其判决的效力超过各国本国法院。


But the EEA also has its own court, whose judgments are binding on EEA member states.	但欧洲经济区也有自己的法院，其判决同时也对欧洲经济区成员国具有约束力。


In short, all the arguments against EU membership also apply, often with even more force, against EEA membership.	总而言之，一切反对加入欧盟的论点也适用于欧洲经济区成员国资格，而且往往更具说服力。


Still, some countries do choose this option.	不过，一些国家依然会选择此选项。


The Norwegians have consistently preferred to remain in the EEA, and have voted more than once, by large majorities, against joining the EU.	挪威一直倾向于留在欧洲经济区，并已经不止一次地大比数公投否决加入欧盟的动议。


Denmark has been a similar case since 1992, when Danish voters rejected eurozone membership under the Maastricht Treaty.	丹麦也是个类似的例子，1992年丹麦人投票否决了根据《马斯特里赫特条约》的欧元区成员国身份。


Now, the Danish krone is so tightly linked to the euro that Denmark’s central bank has effectively lost its independence.	如今丹麦克朗与欧元的联系是如此紧密，导致丹麦央行实际上已经丧失了自身的独立性。


By joining the euro, Denmark would at least have gained a seat at the table.	如果当年能加入欧元区，丹麦起码还能获得一点上谈判桌讨价还价的权利。


The Swiss rejected even EEA membership in a referendum; however, to do business with the EU on the level it wanted, the Swiss government later had to accept most of the EEA rules anyway, including the free movement of people and contributions to the EU budget.	瑞士的全民公决甚至都否决了加入欧洲经济区； 但是为了能更好地与欧盟做生意，瑞士政府后来不得不接受大部分欧洲经济区规则，无论如何，包括人员的自由流动以及对欧盟预算的贡献。


As these real-world examples show, no country that wants to benefit from the European project has been able to have its cake and eat it.	正如这些真实的例子所表明的那样，没有任何一个想从���洲进程中受益的国家能鱼与熊掌兼得。


Open borders and economic integration require common rules.	开放边界和经济一体化需要共同规则。


A “spaghetti bowl” of different à la carte arrangements would not work for a continent of more than 30 small and medium-size countries and more than 500 million people.	在这块拥有超过30个中小规模国家和5亿人口的大陆上是无法通行好几套左右逢源的“意大利面碗”式协定的。


The EU provides this set of common rules, buttressed by common institutions that give every country, even the smallest, a say.	而欧盟则提供这一套共同规则，通过共同的机构，让每一个国家——即使是最小的——都能有发言权。


This is the balancing act of sovereignty in Europe: Each state remains formally sovereign, but if it wants to prosper economically, it must accept the common norms and regulations that enable Europe’s intensive cross-border division of labor.	这就是欧洲的主权平衡手段：每个国家都保留正式的主权，但如果实现经济繁荣，就必须接受共同的规范和法规令欧洲实现高度的跨境劳动分工。


Of course, Europe is more than just a free-trade area; it is also a hub of shared social and cultural life.	当然，欧洲不仅仅是一个自由贸易区； 也是共同社会和文化生活的集散地。


This is why freedom of movement is so appealing, not only from an economic point of view.	这就是为什么迁徙自由是如此的吸引人，而不仅仅从经济角度来看。


Some smaller countries have abdicated their role in influencing Europe’s future.	一些规模较小的国家已经放弃了自身在影响欧洲未来方面所扮演的角色。


But it is surprising to see a country with such a long history of global leadership as Britain suddenly withdrawing into itself.	但奇怪的是连英国这么一个拥有悠久全球领导地位的国家会突然放弃了自己。


Having abandoned its historical role in shaping Europe’s future, will the UK really be content to remain on the sidelines?	那么放弃了在塑造欧洲未来的历史任务的英国，会否真正满足于永远靠边站呢？


A British Tragedy in One Act	英国悲剧一幕


OXFORD – Thursday night is said to have been momentous for those who campaigned to leave the European Union and turn Britain’s back on the twenty-first century.	牛津——对那些宣传离开欧盟、背弃21世纪英国未来的人而言，星期四的夜晚据说非常值得回味。


On that, at least, I can agree.	至少在这一点上，我同意他们的看法。


As Cicero wrote: “O wretched and unhappy was that day.”	西塞罗说：“那一天是多么悲惨和不幸”。


The decision to leave the EU will dominate British national life for the next decade, if not longer.	脱欧决定将影响今后10年英国国民的生活。


One can argue about the precise scale of the economic shock – short- and long-term – but it is difficult to imagine any circumstances in which the United Kingdom does not become poorer and less significant in the world.	短期和长期经济冲击的准确规模有待探讨，但很难想象在哪种情况下英国不会变得更加无足轻重和贫穷。


Many of those who were encouraged to vote allegedly for their “independence” will find that, far from gaining freedom, they have lost their job.	很多被鼓励为所谓“独立”而投票的民众将发现他们不仅没有重获自由，反而因此失去了工作。


So, why did it happen?	那么，究竟是什么原因导致了这样的结果？


First, a referendum reduces complexity to absurd simplicity.	首先，公投荒谬地简化了原本复杂的事务。


The tangle of international cooperation and shared sovereignty represented by Britain’s membership of the EU was traduced into a series of mendacious claims and promises.	英国欧盟成员资格所代表的国际合作和共同主权被诋毁为一系列虚假的声明和承诺。


The British people were told there would be no economic price to pay for leaving, and no losses for all those sectors of its society that have benefited from Europe.	英国民众被告知脱欧不必付出任何经济代价，那些受益于欧洲的行业也不必为此承担损失。