英国自古与欧洲道不同

If you walk down Piccadilly in London you will see one European flag — on the Maltese High Commission — whereas on the continent it seems to be everywhere: at prime ministerial press conferences, on public buildings and on car number plates.

沿着伦敦皮卡迪利大街(Piccadilly)步行，你会看到一面欧盟旗帜——悬挂在马耳他高级专员公署(Maltese High Commission)——而在欧洲大陆上，欧盟旗帜似乎无处不在：在总理的新闻发布会上，在公共建筑上，在汽车号牌上。

British people do not display enthusiasm for Europe , and not just because of its very boring flag. The concept of European identity arouses puzzlement. The great variety — of languages, ethnic groups, religions and literatures — between and even within each country gives the lie to the idea that from Cyprus to Finland we all have a common identity. One of the leaders of the Italian Risorgimento, the 19th-century movement that led to a unified Italy, said: “We have made Italy; now we must make the Italians.” That statement is echoed in modern claims that, even if there is no European identity at the moment, we need to forge one in the future.

英国人并不显露出对欧洲的热情，这不仅仅是因为欧洲的旗帜非常乏味。欧洲身份认同的概念引起了困惑。在不同国家间，乃至一国之内，语言、民族、宗教和文学的多样性表明，从塞浦路斯到芬兰我们都有一个共同身份的理念是虚假的。让意大利走向统一的19世纪意大利复兴运动(Risorgimento)的领导者之一说过：“我们已经创造了意大利;现在我们必须创造意大利人。”这个说法在当代的主张中得到了呼应——这个主张是，即使现在没有形成欧洲身份认同，我们也需要在未来建立这样的认同。

As a historian, I am more interested in trying to make sense of the past than in boldly predicting the future. I share the disappointment of many that the referendum campaign has descended to wild guesses about what might happen to the economy or national security if we leave. Surely we should be looking closely at past economic performance within the EU, which is hardly a comforting story: poor growth, a declining share of world trade and a currency that hobbles from crisis to crisis.

作为一名历史学家，比起大胆的预测未来，我对尝试理解过去更感兴趣。英国是否留在欧洲的公投活动的宣传沦落为对我们离开欧洲，经济或者国家安全会发生什么的胡乱猜测，我和很多人一样，都对此感到失望。我们总该仔细看看英国在欧盟(EU)中的过往经济表现，很难说这令人欣慰：增长疲弱，在世界贸易中的份额下滑，货币在一场场危机中艰难前行。

The British government, in the booklet it sent to every household, decided it would set out the facts, while recommending that the UK should remain inside a reformed EU. In fact, all that has been reformed is the relationship between Britain and the other member states, when it is the whole structure that needs a radical overhaul. A booklet setting out the real facts would not be a bad idea, for the facts are historical and easy to put together: economic performance; the functions of the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament; qualified majority voting; the true cost of membership (a warning to both sides to get this right); the arrangements for vetting arrivals from the border-free Schengen area; trade agreements with leading countries; and the membership and competencies, if one can call them that, of the European Court of Justice.

在发放给每个家庭的小册子里，英国政府断定它可以列出事实，同时建议英国应该留在一个经过改革的欧盟中。事实上，唯一改革的是英国和其他欧盟成员国的关系，而需要彻底改革的是整体架构。一本罗列真正事实的小册子不会是个糟糕的主意，因为这些都是历史性事实，也很容易汇编：经济表现;欧盟委员会(European Commission)、欧盟部长理事会(Council of Ministers)和欧洲议会(European Parliament)的职能;特定多数表决制;欧盟成员国身份的真实成本(告诫两个阵营都要搞清楚这一点);对从无国界申根区赴英人士的审查安排;与主要国家的贸易协定;欧洲法院(European Court of Justice)的成员国身份及权限(如果可以这么说的话)。

Without this basic information voters will be going into the booths armed with their prejudices, presumptions and (the In campaign hopes) their fears for the future. Yet there are also, even from this historical perspective, plenty of intangibles. What was meant by ever-closer union? In the minds of the creators of the common market it meant the creation of a United States of Europe in which all would become citizens of a single polity with a common president and a common defence and foreign policy, quite apart from economic integration.

没有这些基本信息，选民们会带着偏见、假设和(那些留欧运动人士所希望的)对未来的恐惧走进投票间。然而，即使是从历史的角度来看，还存在很多无形的事物。一个日益紧密的联盟意味着什么?在共同市场的创造者心中，这意味着创造一个“欧罗巴合众国”，除了经济一体化以外，所有人都会成为一个单一政体下的公民，这个政体将由一位共同的总统统治，实施共同的防卫和外交政策。

Then there is the question of sovereignty. Every state compromises this to some extent. Most concessions of sovereignty are very minor: the presence of French border police at the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras, for instance. Membership of Nato certainly involves commitments that constrain our absolute freedom in foreign policy; but, as General Charles de Gaulle showed, one can walk away from Nato, though I would certainly not advise doing so.

然后是主权的问题。每个国家都在这个问题上做出了不同程度的让步。大多数让步是非常轻微的：比如，法国在“欧洲之星”列车位于伦敦圣潘克拉斯(St Pancras)的终点站派驻了边境警察。北约(Nato)的成员国身份必然涉及限制我们在外交政策方面的绝对自由的承诺;但就如法国戴高乐将军(General Charles de Gaulle)的举动表明的，国家可以退出北约，尽管我肯定不会建议这样做。

The ceding of sovereignty to the EU is of an entirely different order. Here, legislation is being imposed from outside, and, although the British government has some say in its formulation, it does not determine its final form. In matters of interpretation, it has to accede to the judgments of the ECJ.

将主权让渡给欧盟就是一种完全不同的情况了。在这种情况下，法规是从外部强制实施的，而且尽管英国政府在法规制定中有一定的发言权，但它并不能决定其最终形态。在法律解释方面，英国必须认同欧洲法院的判决。

Here is a court composed, one hopes, of worthy lawyers, mostly trained in a very different legal tradition from that of the UK. Common law is uncommon among members of the EU. It is rooted in history — it is not just a product of English history but is itself history, the creative use of precedent. It also underlies our peculiar constitutional arrangements: no written constitution and a book of parliamentary practice, Erskine May’s Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, that is, remarkably, merely an unofficial guide written in 1844 and then updated.

这个法院是由值得尊敬的律师组成的(希望如此)，他们大多数人是在一种与英国截然不同的法律传统下受到培训的。英国的普通法系在欧盟成员国中并不普通。这种法系植根于历史之中——它不仅仅是英国历史的产物，其本身就是历史，是对先例的创造性运用。英国普通法系也突显出我们独特的宪法安排：没有成文宪法，厄斯金•梅(Erskine May)的《议会惯例》(A Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament)仅仅是一份写于1844年、之后不断更新再版的非正式指南。

Britain has diverged from its European neighbours over the centuries. No one denies that English kings have occasionally exercised great power on the continent (though never as kings of England, but as separately constituted dukes of Normandy or electors of Hanover). David Cameron, the UK prime minister, has cited the great battles of Blenheim, Trafalgar and Waterloo as signs that Britain has played its part on the continent; but these were triumphant moments in bitter wars, not exactly an example to follow in the Europe of the future. Edmund Burke’s prescription of evolution, not revolution, set out in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, expressed the true temper of the nation.

数个世纪以来，英国与其欧洲邻国走的都不是一条路。没人会否认英国的国王偶尔也在欧洲大陆上行使大权(尽管从来都不是以英格兰国王的身份，而是以诺曼底公爵或者汉诺威选帝侯的身份)。英国首相戴维•卡梅伦(David Cameron)曾经援引布伦海姆(Blenheim)战役、特拉法加(Trafalgar)海战和滑铁卢(Waterloo)战役，作为英国在欧洲大陆发挥作用的例证;但这些都是在恶战中的胜利时刻，并不能作为在未来的欧洲可以效仿的例子。埃德蒙•柏克(Edmund Burke)在《法国革命论》(Reflections on the Revolution in France)中为演变、而非革命开出的处方，体现了这个国家的真实性情。

Certainly, England has had its violent civil wars, notably in the 15th and 17th centuries, as well as unrest in the 19th century. Overall, though, an unusually stable polity evolved that defied the predictions of Marx and Engels that the first industrial nation would become the first revolutionary nation. Fascism had little purchase here, and the far left has until recently exercised little influence.

当然，英国也曾经历过激烈的内战，尤其是在15世纪和17世纪，在19世纪还曾发生过动乱。然而，英国整体上是一个异常稳定的政体，其演变打破了马克思(Marx)和恩格斯(Engels)关于第一个工业国家将成为第一个革命国家的预言。法西斯主义在这里几乎没有市场，极左翼的影响力在不久以前都微乎其微。

Those who argue that the EU has brought us valuable legislation governing working conditions (though the working time directive has caused as many difficulties as it has resolved) need to show more confidence in the ability of our own government to introduce such laws, better framed and more closely adapted to the needs of this particular country. We cannot let ourselves be ruled by European legislation that overrides our own laws. A vote to leave is a vote for democracy.

那些主张欧盟给我们带来了关于规范劳动条件(尽管工作时间指令引起的困难和其解决的困难一样多)的宝贵立法的人，应该对我们本国政府有能力引入更完善、更贴合本国需求的类似法律展现出更多的信心。我们不能受治于凌驾在本国法律之上的欧洲法规。为退欧投票就是为民主投票。