英国脱离欧盟十分愚蠢 Britain's friends are right to fear Brexit

How might future historians judge a British to decision to leave the EU in the referendum on June 23? It might well be seen as the moment when the west started to unravel. That is why Barack Obama, US president, is not merely entitled to present his views on “Brexit”. As leader of the west, he must do so.

未来的历史学家可能会如何评判英国在6月23日公投中决定脱离欧盟(EU)？这很有可能被视为一个西方开始解体的时刻。这就是为何美国总统巴拉克•奥巴马(Barack Obama)不仅有权陈述他对“英国脱欧”的看法，而且作为西方世界的一位领袖，他必须这么做。

The choice the UK faces in June is whether to exercise its option to leave the EU now. So long as it is a member, it will always have this option. But it will not be granted the choice to rejoin after it has left. The moment to exercise a perpetual option is when its value is not just high, but unlikely to become much higher. The UK should vote to leave if, and only if, it is sure it will be better off than if it postponed the choice. That is not the case now. It might never be.

英国在今年6月面临的选择是：是否现在就行使脱离欧盟的选择权。只要它还是欧盟成员国，它就永远有这个选择。但一旦英国脱离欧盟，就不会再被赋予重新加入的选择。行使永久期权应该是在它的价值不仅高、而且不太可能变得更高时。当且仅当英国确定相对于推迟作出选择，现在就脱离欧盟会让英国的境况变得更好时，英国才应投票离开。现在并不是这种情况。或许这种情况永远不会出现。

Indeed, those in favour of remaining, like me, would argue that, far from bringing gains, exercising the option to depart would deliver immediate losses. This, proponents of Brexit complain, is “project fear”. That objection is absurd. Avoiding needless and costly risks is how adults differ from children.

实际上，那些像我一样支持英国留在欧盟的人认为，行使脱欧选择权不会带来好处，反而会造成立即的损失。脱欧支持者们抱怨称，这是“恐惧计划”(project fear)。这种反对是荒谬的。避免不必要的、代价高昂的风险是成年人区别于儿童的标志。

Possible economic costs of leaving are laid out in the Treasury’s excellent analysis, published this week. It argues that the UK would be significantly worse off under any of the three most plausible alternatives to membership: membership of the European Economic Area (like Norway), a bilateral trade agreement (like Canada) or shared membership of the World Trade Organisation (like Japan). Under the first, the loss, relative to a baseline of continued membership, would be between 3.4 and 4.3 per cent of gross domestic product by 2030; under the second, it would be between 4.6 and 7.8 per cent; under the third, it would be between 5.4 per cent and 9.5 per cent. Should we believe these numbers? No. But the direction is right and the magnitudes probably too small. In sum, the UK economy would be less open to trade and foreign direct investment than otherwise, if it left the EU. This would then damage its level of productivity and so its output.

英国财政部在上周公布的精彩分析中列出了脱欧可能付出的经济代价。分析认为，如果抛弃欧盟成员国身份，不论英国在如下三种看似最合理的替代选择中选哪一个，境况都将显著变糟：加入欧洲经济区(European Economic Area)（像挪威那样）、缔结双边贸易协议（像加拿大那样）、或者仅依靠世界贸易组织(WTO)成员国身份（像日本那样）。在第一种选择下，相对于继续留在欧盟，到2030年，其损失将相当于英国国内生产总值(GDP)的3.4%至4.3%；在第二种选择下，损失在GDP的4.6%至 7.8%之间；在第三种选择下，损失在GDP的5.4%至9.5%之间。我们是否应相信这些数据？不。但其方向是正确的，只不过可能低估了损失规模。总的来看，与留在欧盟相比，脱欧后的英国经济对贸易和外国直接投资的开放程度将降低。这将进而损害英国的生产率水平以及产出。

Some proponents of Brexit argue that this is incorrect, because the UK economy would become more deregulated and dynamic outside the EU. Yet the UK is already one of the least regulated large high-income economies. Furthermore, the worst UK regulations — those on land use — are homegrown. Again, the biggest intervention in the labour market in recent years has been the government’s decision to impose a big jump in the minimum wage. (See charts.)

支持脱欧的一些人认为，这么说不对，因为脱欧后的英国经济将解除更多监管，也更有活力。然而，英国已是监管最为宽松的大型高收入经济体之一了。另外，英国最糟糕的监管规定（有关土地使用的规定）是英国自产的。再者，最近几年对劳动力市场的最大干预，是英国政府决定大幅上调最低工资。（见图表）

Proponents of Brexit will also argue that the UK economy need not become less open. But this argument has a catch. The more the UK wished to preserve its privileged access to the EU market (by becoming a member of the EEA) the less sovereignty it would regain. It would not gain control over immigration and would have to accept single market regulations without any influence on them. If, to take an opposite extreme, the UK chose the WTO option in its trade with the EU, but decided unilaterally to keep its tariffs against the EU at zero, it would be obliged to offer the same deal to all other WTO members. Such unilateral free trade is an option. But it would also remove virtually all the bargaining chips needed to negotiate preferential access to non-EU markets. This is quite apart from the fact that the UK would have far more clout in such negotiations if operating via the EU than if acting all on its own.

脱欧支持者还会辩称，英国经济不一定会降低开放程度。但这种观点存在误导。英国越是希望保留其进入欧盟市场的特权——通过成为欧洲经济区成员实现——其能够重新获得的主权就越少。英国不会获得对移民的控制权，而且将不得不接受单一市场规则，却对后者产生不了任何影响。举一个极端的反面例子：如果英国在其与欧盟的贸易中选择WTO规则，但又单方面决定保持对欧盟的零关税政策，那它将不得不向WTO所有其他成员国提供同样的优惠。这样的单边自由贸易是一种选择。但这样做将使英国失去与非欧盟市场谈判优惠进入条件所需的所有筹码。与之截然相反，比起单打独斗，通过欧盟进行协商，可以让英国在此类谈判中获得大得多的影响力。

Another objection is that the EU is becoming a less important market for the UK. Yet the absolute increase in UK exports to the EU over the 10 years to 2014 was still far larger than to any other market even though the growth rate was far slower. This is because the base is so huge. The UK is also the largest recipient of inward foreign direct investment within the EU. It is inconceivable that the attractions of the UK to investors would not be diminished if it did not have access to the EU market on a par with that of members. (See chart.)

另一种反对意见认为，对英国而言，欧盟这个市场的重要性正在降低。然而，在截至2014年的10年间，英国对欧盟出口的绝对增长仍远远大于对其他任何市场的出口增长，尽管增速慢得多。而增速较慢是因为基数太大。英国也是欧盟内接收外国直接投资最多的国家。如果英国没有与欧盟成员国同样的进入欧盟市场的权利，很难想象，英国对投资者的吸引力不会下降（见图表）。

These arguments, however, relate only to the long term. Despite absurd attempts to deny this fact, it is also true that nobody knows what would follow a vote for Brexit. First, proponents of Brexit do not agree on which alternative to pursue. Second, we do not know what the UK’s partners might want. Some foolishly assume that latter will be generous. But a partner who has been repudiated is unlikely to be generous in a divorce. Moreover, the overwhelming aim of the rest of the EU will be to keep it together. They will want to make any exit painful. Finally, Brexit will mean a long period of turmoil and uncertainty. The financial crisis has shown how costly such uncertainty can be, not just for a few years, but far into the future.

然而，这些观点只与长期相关。虽然有人荒唐地试图否认，但没人知道英国退欧之后会发生什么，这也是事实。首先，退欧支持者对于退欧后应选哪种替代选择意见并不一致。第二，我们不知道英国的合作伙伴想要什么。有人愚蠢地认为，他们将会很慷慨。但一个被抛弃的伙伴不大可能在分道扬镳后还对你慷慨。此外，欧盟其他国家的压倒性目标将是保持欧盟完整性。他们将会让任何退出都付出痛苦的代价。最后，退欧意味着英国将迎来长时期的动荡和不确定性。金融危机已经展现出这种不确定性会带来多大的代价，不仅殃及近几年，对遥远的未来都会产生影响。

For all such reasons, foreign friends are appalled by the potential damage done by Brexit — and not just to the UK, but more widely. Foremost among these is the US. It behoves those who prate of violated UK sovereignty to remember that, had the US not become engaged, the UK would now be a Nazi or Soviet satellite. US resources and will sustained the west during the second world war and the cold war. Pressed itself, the US desires a prosperous and outward-looking Europe, capable of sharing burdens in the decades ahead. The US has long regarded the UK’s active participation in the continent, of which the latter will always be a part, as a vital interest. The UK is not the great power of the past. But its actions still have consequences. It is not — and must not wish to be — a European Singapore. Only the west’s enemies would welcome such a folly.

鉴于所有这些原因，外国朋友害怕英国退欧对英国以及更广范地区造成的潜在破坏。首当其冲的就是美国。那些空谈英国主权遭侵犯的人应当记住，如果美国不介入，现在的英国或许是纳粹国家或者苏联的卫星国。美国的资源和意志在二战以及冷战期间支撑着西方国家。本身感到压力的美国希望看到一个繁荣、开放的欧洲，希望欧洲能够在未来几十年与其分担负担。美国长期以来一直将英国积极参与欧洲大陆事务（并且英国将永远是欧洲大陆的一个部分）视为重大利益。英国不再是昔日的日不落帝国。但其所作所为仍会产生巨大影响。英国不是（也绝不能希望成为）欧洲的新加坡。只有西方的敌人才会对如此愚蠢的行为表示欢迎。

How do most informed Americans, Australians or, for that matter, other Europeans, react when they see the UK considering the end of a relationship that gives it a voice in the direction of the continent, while being free from so many of the burdens and mistakes of our partners? They think it mad. Nicely, but firmly, Mr Obama should say so.

当看到英国正考虑结束一段关系——而这段关系使它在对欧洲大陆发展方向拥有发言权的同时，又不用承担太多负担及伙伴国的错误——大多数明智的美国人、澳大利亚人或者（就此事而言）其他欧洲人会作何反应？他们会认为英国疯了。奥巴马应当温和而坚定地说出来（编者注：奥巴马上周访英时表示，如果英国离开欧盟，英国“在欧洲的影响力会减弱，在全球的影响力也会随之减弱”）。