In the referendum campaign on Britain’smembership of the EU, each side has one trump cardthat they will play repeatedly until voting day onJune 23. The Remain camp will talk about theeconomy. The Leavers will talk about immigration.
在決議英國事否留在歐盟(EU)內的公投前的造勢運動中，兩邊各有一張王牌;在6月23日的投票日以前，兩邊都邑重復打出本身的那張王牌。留歐陣營談判經濟。退歐陣營則談判移民。
Many diehard Remainers regard the Leavecampaign’s stress on immigration as proof that it is a movement that ultimately rests onracism and xenophobia. But immigration is a legitimate issue in this campaign. Indeed, theLeave side would be stupid not to use it since, when voters are asked to name their concerns,they regularly put immigration at the top of the list. In 2015, net migration to the UK hit333,000, the second-highest number on record, with about half that number coming from theEU.
很多死忠的留歐派人士以為，退歐活動對移民題目的誇大，證實退歐活動歸根結柢根植於種族主義和仇外生理。但移民是這場“去留之爭”中的一個公道題目。究竟上，退歐陣營假如晦氣用這個題目就太愚昧了，由於選民們在被問到擔心哪些題目時，平日會把移民題目放在題目名單的首位。2015年，進入英國的凈移民人數到達了33.3萬，這是有記載以來第二高的數字;這個數字中約一半來自歐盟。
For the Leave campaign, immigration from Europe is a gift because it perfectly captures threeof the themes that the “Outers” most like to stress: loss of sovereignty, the faulty judgmentof elites and the difficulty of achieving meaningful reform of the EU.
對退歐活動來講，來自歐洲的移民是天賜的良機，由於這些移民完善地表現了三個主題：主權的損失，精英的毛病斷定和歐盟很難實現故意義的改造。這3個主題恰是退歐派人士最愛好誇大的多少主題中的3個。
Hardcore Eurosceptics in the Conservative party have been complaining about loss ofsovereignty for decades. But the things that enraged them, such as the EU’s working timedirective, are not the sorts of issues that normal people lose sleep over.
守舊黨中的鐵桿疑歐論者數十年來一向在埋怨英國損失了主權。但激憤他們的工作，好比歐盟的《事情時光指令》(working time directive)，並非會讓通俗人夜不克不及寐的那種題目。
By contrast, immigration provides a meaningful practical example of what “loss of sovereignty”actually entails. After the arrival of more than 1m migrants from eastern Europe over the pastdecade, some British voters wanted to call a halt. That put David Cameron, the prime minister,in the awkward position of having to explain that the UK government is powerless to controlthe flow of migrants from the rest of the EU. The EU’s rules on the free movement of peoplemandate that all EU citizens have the right to live and work anywhere within the 28-countrybloc.
相反，移民則供給了一個故意義的實際例子，反應出“損失主權”現實上到底象征著甚麽。在曩昔10年跨越100萬東歐移民來到英國今後，一些英國選民現在想要對移民叫停。這讓英國輔弼戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)位於一種為難的地步，他不能不向大眾說明，英國當局實在無力掌握來自歐盟其他處所的移民流入。歐盟的職員自由活動規矩劃定，全部歐盟國民都有權在歐盟28個成員國中的任何處所生存和事情。
One of the basic characteristics of a nation state has traditionally been the right to decide whocan live in the country and enjoy the benefits of citizenship. Many voters instinctively feel thatthis is the way it should still be. But that traditional sovereign right has indeed been sacrificed(or pooled, if you prefer) by EU members.
民族國度的一個根本特點便是，有權決議誰能在這個國度生存並享有國民福利。很多選民本能地以為工作現在仍應如斯。但歐盟成員國現實上已就義了(假如你樂意，也能夠說是同享了)這類傳統的主權。
The British government’s failure to anticipate the scale of migration from eastern Europe hasalso fed the public’s scepticism about official pronouncements on the EU. Just before theenlargement of the EU in 2004 to include 10 new members, the government predicted that anaverage of 13,000 migrants a year would move to Britain from the newly extended bloc. In theevent, the figure was more than 10 times that. After this miscalculation, it is hardly surprisingif the public now reacts sceptically to government figures about the economic impact of leavingthe EU.
英國當局昔時未能預感到東歐移民的範圍，這也催生了"大眾,"對有關歐盟的官方看法持疑惑立場。就在歐盟2004年擴展，納入10個新成員前不久，英國當局還曾預言，均勻每一年只會有1.3萬名來自歐盟新成員國的移民進入英國。在當局的此次誤判後，"大眾,"對其頒布的有關退歐經濟影響的數據抱以疑惑也就其實不奇異了。
Once the scale of the immigration into Britain became clear, the UK government tried to securechanges in the EU’s rules on the free movement of people. In October, in the early stages ofhis attempted re-negotiation with the EU, Mr Cameron promised to “sort” the issue andinsisted, “I will not take no for an answer.”
看清進入英國的移民範圍後，英國當局曾試圖匆匆使歐盟轉變有關職員自由活動的劃定。2014年10月，在方才開端試下與歐盟從新會談時，卡梅倫曾許諾將“厘清”這個題目，並稱將“不達目標決不放手”。
But the Cameron re-negotiation merely highlighted a third Eurosceptic complaint about theEU: that it is an organisation that finds it all-but-impossible to reform itself.
但卡梅倫的從新會談不外是凸顯了疑歐論者對歐盟的第三條埋怨：這個構造險些弗成能對本身舉行改造。
The rules on free movement are one of the “four freedoms” that are regarded as basic to EUmembership. But even if there had been leaders around the negotiating table who agreed withMr Cameron that something needs to change, it was always going to be impossible to securethe agreement of each of the other 27 member states, many of which were under strongdomestic pressure to fight for continued free movement of people. Instead, Mr Cameron hadto settle for a much weaker reform: delays in the payment of welfare benefits to EU migrants.
有四項自由被視為歐盟成員資歷的基本，職員的自由活動便是個中之一。縱然在會談桌上有一些引導人認同卡梅倫的概念(即，某些工作須要改造)，獲得其他27個成員國中每個國度的認同也始終是弗成能的(這些國度中很多都蒙受著壯大的海內壓力，請求爭奪持續職員的自由活動)。因而，卡梅倫只得知足於一項力度弱很多的改造：推延向歐盟移民付出福利補助。
Of course, it is also true that there are elements of dishonesty and xenophobia in the way theLeave campaign has used immigration. The Leavers have sometimes deliberately blurred thedistinction between legal immigrants from the EU and asylum seekers fleeing the Middle East— a powerful tactic, given the current refugee crisis in Europe. Nigel Farage, one of the mostprominent Leave campaigners, has even evoked sexual assaults by migrants in Germany as areason to quit the EU.
固然，退歐活動應用移民題目的方法也切實其實存在不老實和仇外的身分。退歐派人士偶然會有意隱約來自歐盟的正當移民與追求卵翼的中東災黎之間的差別——斟酌到當前的歐洲災黎危急，這是一種壯大的戰術。退歐活動的旗頭之一奈傑爾•法拉奇(Nigel Farage)乃至曾援用德國移民性侵案作為退出歐盟的來由。
At the same time, the Leave campaign has appealed to UK voters with roots outside Europe —by suggesting that if Britain leaves the EU it could adopt an immigration policy that allows inmore migrants from India and Pakistan. That idea is unlikely to delight the Leavers’ core votein the white working class.
同時，退歐活動還表示，假如英國分開歐盟，英國就能夠實行讓更多印度和巴基斯坦移民進入英國的移民政策，試圖經由過程這一設法主意，吸引本籍在歐洲之外的那部門英國選民的支撐。但退歐陣營在白人工薪階級中的焦點支撐者不太大概愛好這個設法主意。
As far as I can see, large-scale migration from Europe has benefited Britain. And manyimportant institutions, from the National Health Service to my local coffee shop, would struggleto get by without it. But then again, as an affluent Londoner, it is predictable that I wouldtake a relaxed view of immigration.
在我眼裏，來自歐洲的大範圍移民讓英國受益。假如沒有移民，從英國國度衛生辦事系統(NHS)到我家鄰近咖啡店的很多主要機構，都將很難保持運轉。不外話說返來，像我如許生存殷實的倫敦人，對移民抱著自在的立場也是可以預感的。
However, at a time when real wages are stagnant, house prices are rising and public servicesare creaking, many British people are susceptible to the argument that high immigration ismaking such problems worse.
但是，在現實人為裹足不前，房價愈來愈高，大眾辦事不勝重負之際，很多英國人輕易接收如許的概念：大範圍移民正在讓這些題目落井下石。
Are these concerns about immigration — real and imagined — enough to overwhelm theeconomic and strategic case for staying inside the EU? Not as far as I am concerned. But I willnot be remotely surprised if Britain decides differently on June 23.
這些有關移民的掛念(不管是確切存在的照樣化為烏有的)，是不是足以壓服留在歐盟內的經濟和計謀上的來由?在我眼裏不會。但若英國在6月23日做出了別的的選取，我也一點兒都不會覺得驚奇。
市場價：HK$ 92
