12月29日口譯文章：否決英國分開歐盟的幾點緣故原由
決議英國在歐盟(EU)中去留的癥結性投票日趨鄰近，毫無疑難，投票成果將對咱們的子女發生深遠影響。固然有些人大概不肯卷入這場爭辯，但我以為，堅持緘默將讓咱們支付難以蒙受的價值。
豈論這一題目被視為經濟題目(焦點是英國留在歐盟可以獲得甚麽)，抑或是更深條理的題目(如安在一個日趨不肯定的天下中保護平安與氣力)，這一事宜比以往任什麽時候候都更加惹人註視。
英國早已與歐洲殺青了全部大概殺青的最佳生意業務。英國可以進入歐洲單一市場(後者是近一半英國出口的目標地)，卻沒必要蒙受作為歐元區成員國的重任。
本月早些時刻，近200個國度齊聚一堂，為的是殺青一項協定——在應答氣象變更過程中若何能力最佳地掩護地球的將來。同很多此類協定同樣，這項協定遠非完善，但它說明了位於歐洲爭辯焦點的題目：經由過程互助，列國可以或許實現比單打獨斗多很多的造詣。
已在英國慢慢構成制作才能並將其作為進入歐洲單一市場跳板的跨國公司的治理層不肯公然這麽說，由於他們不想卷入一場本身的客戶存在乎見不合的政治爭辯。但當我暗裏問他們時，他們很願意認可本身的設法主意。
“離開歐盟”(Leave)活動試圖說服英國"大眾,"，位於單一市場以外比成為個中一部門讓英國更平安。這類概念有本身的市場，由於英國當局想給人們留下為了保持最有益的協定而不願向歐盟讓步的印象。應用這些限定，“離開歐盟”活動有意誤導了"大眾,"。
我的小我閱歷極大地影響了本身在這次英國公投中的親歐盟態度。納粹1944年進軍匈牙利的光陰給我的性命留下了難以消逝的影象。假如我父親沒有為家人弄到假身份的話，我活下來的機遇將相稱迷茫。
我從父親那邊學到的重要履歷是：與其假裝看不見，不如直面殘暴的實際。作為二戰的幸存者，我於1947年搬到了英格蘭(一樣也是在父親的指點下)。恰是在倫敦政治經濟學院(London School of Economics)時代，我讀到了卡爾波普(Karl Popper)的《開放社會及其仇敵》(Open Society and Its Enemies)一書。我一起見證作為開放社會化身的歐盟出生，並成為歐盟畢生的支撐者。
這並不料味著我對歐盟的缺點與缺點置若罔聞。相反，我完整認可它們的存在。歐洲不克不及對本身的平安誌得意滿，英國也不克不及。
低估弗拉基米爾渠京(Vladimir Putin)總一切治下俄羅斯的野心和用意將會犯下汗青性的計謀毛病。歐洲引導人大概懂得這一威逼的緊張性，但迄今，他們做出的反響更多地表示為淩亂，而非聯貫同等。他們必需明確，在辦理能源依附題目以前，俄羅斯將不憚於應用本國的煤油權利威逼東歐和西歐。
現在，歐盟在多條陣線都受到了進擊。假如英國決定分開，歐盟將為本身的生計而戰。咱們這些對歐盟懷有猛烈情感的人有義務發出本身的聲音，更自負地主意：比起離開歐盟單打獨斗，留在歐盟的英國會更壯大、更平安、更充裕。
歐盟其實不完善，但它強於一個由普京的俄羅斯主導的歐洲。歐洲的不完善恰好是咱們必需盡力改良它的緣故原由。
英國"大眾,"並未有過我在戰時的閱歷，但我是個實足的“親英派”，我信任英國人的汗青影象足以讓他們秉承與我一樣的態度。我發明瀏覽英國媒體在這方面使人鼓動：英國媒體仿佛完整意想到了來自俄羅斯的傷害。我猛烈支撐英國留在歐盟，不但出於經濟緣故原由，而更多地是出於政治緣故原由。
【參考譯文】
As Britain approaches a crucial vote on whether to leave or remain in the EU, there is no doubt about how far-reaching the consequences could be for future generations. While some may be reluctant to be drawn into the debate, I believe the stakes are simply too high to remain silent.
Whether the question is seen as an economic one, centring on what Britain gets out of being in Europe, or whether it is the more profound issue of how to maintain security and strength in an increasingly uncertain world, the case is more compelling than it has ever been.
Britain already has the best of all possible deals with Europe. It has access to the single market, where nearly half of UK exports go, while it is not weighed down by the burden of being a member of the eurozone.
Earlier this month, almost 200 countries came together to agree how best to safeguard the future of the planet in the fight against climate change. As with many such agreements, it is far from perfect — but this illustrates the issue at the heart of the Europe debate: by working together, countries can achieve so much more than they can achieve alone.
The managements of multinationals that have built up their manufacturing capacity in Britain as a spring board into the single market are reluctant to say so publicly because they do not want to get embroiled in a political debate where their customers have divergent views. But ask them privately, as I have, and they will readily confirm it.
The Leave campaign has tried to convince the British public that it is safer to stay out of the single market than to be part of it. It has had the field to itself because the government wants to give the impression that it is holding out for the best deal from the EU. Taking advantage of these constraints, the Leave campaign has deliberately misled the public.
My pro-European views on the British referendum have been greatly influenced by my personal experiences. The year when the Nazis marched into Hungary, 1944, was the formative experience of my life. If my father had not secured false identities for his family, my chances of survival would have been rather slim.
The main lesson I learnt from my father is that it is better to confront harsh reality than to close your eyes to it. Having survived the war, I moved to England in 1947, again under my father’s guidance. It was while at the London School of Economics that I read Karl Popper’s book, Open Society and Its Enemies. I came to see what became the EU as the embodiment of the open society and became its life-long supporter.
That does not mean that I have closed my eyes to its weaknesses and shortcomings. On the contrary, I recognise them completely. Europe cannot afford to be complacent about its security, and neither can Britain.
It would be a strategic mistake of epic proportions to underestimate the ambitions and the intent of President Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Europe’s leaders may comprehend the scale of this threat, but so far their response has been characterised more by confusion than by coherence. They must understand that, until their energy dependency is addressed, Russia will not be afraid to use its petro-power to threaten both eastern and western Europe.
Today Europe is under attack on many fronts. If Britain were to leave, Europe would be fighting for its very survival. Those of us who feel passionately have an obligation to make our voices heard, and argue more confidently that Britain is stronger, safer and better off in the EU than it would be out on its own.
The EU is imperfect but it is preferable to a Europe dominated by Mr Putin’s Russia. Europe’s very imperfection is the reason we must endeavour to improve it.
The British public did not share my wartime experiences but I am enough of an Anglophile to believe that it has sufficient historical memory to take the same position as I do. I find reading the British press encouraging in this respect: it seems fully aware of the danger emanating from Russia. I strongly support Britain staying in the EU, not only for economic but even more for political reasons.
市場價：HK$ 110
