## 原文
"BRITAIN does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community," asserted Margaret Thatcher in 1988\. Now, increasingly, it does. Opinion polls show that most Britons are in favour of leaving the European Union. Baroness Thatcher's Conservative Party, which took Britain into Europe four decades ago, is divided between those who long for an arm's-length relationship and those who want to walk out. The second camp is swelling.
Even the fiercest British critics of the EU are astonished by the speed at which things are moving. Parliamentary rebellions over Europe are becoming easier and easier to organise. Euroscepticism is hardening in the Conservative Party, in much the same way as social conservatism has gone from being a powerful current in America's Republican Party to an intolerant orthodoxy. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which wants to leave the EU, has abruptly moved from the political margins to the mainstream. A referendum on Britain's membership of the EU now seems a matter of timing.
Continental Europeans are surprised too—and annoyed. They are bewildered that the British should be talking of leaving a club that many believe has shifted decisively in a free-trading, Anglo-Saxon direction in the past two decades. They also resent the way Britain seems to be using the threat of an exit as a bargaining tool, especially at a time when the euro is in crisis. As they see it, Britain wants to carve out a privileged place for itself in the European club, where it can enjoy free trade without any of the other membership rules. In Berlin and Rome, political leaders argue that Britain needs to make up its mind once and for all: does it want to be in or out?
Oops!
For an economically liberal newspaper that has been sceptical of much that Brussels does, a British exit would be a double tragedy. Britons would suffer far more than they currently realise, as we explain in detail in our briefing this week. Europe would be damaged too. Britain has stood for free trade and low regulation, so without it the union would be more lethargic and left ever further behind by America and the emerging world.
The speediest way for Britain to tumble out would be an “In or Out” referendum called by a prime minister frightened by rising anti-Europe feeling in Parliament and the country as a whole. David Cameron, Britain's prime minister, has tried to resist this, hinting instead that Britons would be given a choice between the status quo and a more detached relationship. But few are satisfied with that. Conservative MPs look over their right shoulders at UKIP and clamour for a sharper choice.
Another route out involves a diplomatic slip. The cleverer Eurosceptics, including Mr Cameron, do not want Britain to leave; they just want to bring back some powers from Brussels. But their efforts to do so are making things worse. Last year almost all other EU members lined up against Mr Cameron, who was trying to block a fiscal compact to help resolve the euro crisis. The British now hope that tightening euro-zone integration provides a chance for Mr Cameron to negotiate looser ties. They could be wrong. Other countries are tiring of British demands. Many, including Germany, would prefer to avoid a British exit, but they are not so desperate to keep Mr Cameron in that they are prepared to concede much in the way of social and labour-market regulation. And some, such as France, might positively welcome the departure of the club's most awkward member. Bad-tempered negotiations would increase the likelihood of an “out” vote in a British referendum.
Little sovereignty, large cost
And what if Britain left? It could grab a few benefits quickly. The nation would save about ￡8 billion ($13 billion) a year in net budget contributions. Freed of the common agricultural policy, its food could become cheaper. If it pulled out of the single market, it could do away with annoying labour directives. The City would not have to worry so much about a financial-transaction tax and creeping European finance rules.
Yet these gains would be greatly outweighed by the costs of a British exit, which would dent trade with a market that accounts for half of Britain's exports. The carmakers that use Britain as their European operations base would gradually drift away, along with large parts of the financial-services industry. Britain would have to renegotiate dozens of bilateral trade deals from a much weaker position than it enjoyed as a member of the EU. It would cut a greatly diminished figure on the world stage. It would have bought some sovereignty, but at an extraordinary cost to Britain—and its partners.
Among those who want out, there is talk of finding an accommodation by which Britain would leave the EU but still trade freely with it (the equivalent of eating in a restaurant but not paying the cover charge). Some Eurosceptics suggest Britain could join Norway in the European Economic Area. That would leave it bound by EU regulations that it would be almost powerless to shape—a situation many Britons, especially Eurosceptics, would find intolerable. Others hope Britain might get the same deal as Switzerland, which is a little further removed but gets good access to the single market. It wouldn't: the EU already regrets giving Switzerland the Swiss option, so it is scarcely likely to give bigger, more troublesome Britain the same deal. Again, disappointment and a referendum beckon.
Can anything be done to prevent this slow-motion disaster? Quite possibly, it can. Oddly, Mr Cameron should try emulating Baroness Thatcher. She is remembered today as a handbag-swinger who commanded Brussels to retreat, but she also knew how to make common cause with other European leaders. Unfortunately, the quality of British EU diplomacy has deteriorated in recent years. Obsessed with repatriating powers and with appearing tough to their domestic audience, Britain's current leaders seem to have forgotten the art of dealmaking. Mr Cameron has a good case to make, especially when he argues for extending the single market to promote growth. He also has powerful sympathisers in Europe, including Germany's Angela Merkel, but they seldom become useful allies because Britain is seen as a blackmailing zealot.
The other priority should be educating Britons about what exactly a British exit would really involve. Big business and the City, whose interests lie solidly inside the EU, need to take a stand. The Labour Party, which has been playing a cynical and dangerous game, also needs to change its line. In October Labour MPs voted with anti-European Tories over the EU budget, handing the government its first major defeat. By strengthening those who want to leave Europe, Labour is making it more likely that a Conservative government will have to promise an in-or-out referendum. If it does, Labour may be bounced into promising the same.
Most of the heavy lifting, at home as well as in Brussels, will have to be done by Mr Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne. They need to remind Britons of the victories that have been won within the EU and of the dangers of falling out of it. And above all, they need to rediscover the virtues of muddling along and keeping options open. The referendum is a good example. Rushing to hold a simple in-or-out vote sounds clear and decisive. But stalling for time is wiser. The government should resist demands for a vote at least until it becomes clear what sort of Europe Britain would be voting to remain in or leave. This sort of wait-and-see approach may feel unsatisfactory, but it is what kept Britain out of the euro.
Britain's position in Europe may become untenable, if the resolution of the economic crisis binds the countries of the euro zone ever closer and all other EU countries join. But that is not a certainty, and nor is Britain's steady marginalisation. Difficult and often humiliating as it may be, the best course is to stick close to Europe, and try to bend it towards Britain.
## 譯文及剖析
"BRITAIN does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community," asserted Margaret Thatcher in 1988\. Now, increasingly, it does. Opinion polls show that most Britons are in favour of leaving the European Union. Baroness Thatcher's Conservative Party, which took Britain into Europe four decades ago, is divided between those who long for an arm's-length relationship and those who want to walk out. The second camp is swelling.
“英國并不夢想脫離歐洲，成為一個舒適卻孤立的社區。” 瑪格麗特·撒切爾夫人1988年時宣稱。但是現在，這卻逐步的成為現實。民意調查顯示大多數英國人偏向于脫離歐盟。撒切爾夫人帶領的保守黨，40多年前將英國領進歐盟，現在正分裂成兩派，一部分希望保持距離但維護關系，另一部分則希望脫離歐盟。而后者的陣營正在壯大。
**European Community，原文是全大寫的，所以是專有名詞，指“歐共體”（歐盟前身）；assert有“斷言、堅決主張”的意思，翻譯為“宣稱”力度減弱了；“這卻逐步成為現實”意思模糊，原文的does是針對之前的dose not來說的，意思很明確，可翻譯為“卻日益脫離歐洲/走向當年的反面”；in favor of是“贊成”而不是“偏向于”；Baronness沒有翻譯出來，這里的Baronness Thatcher's Conservative Party是一起的，用來表示“那個時代”的意思，所以應當翻譯為“女爵士”；40年前，英國加入的是歐共體而不是歐盟；“撒切爾夫人帶領的保守黨，40多年前將英國領進歐盟，現在正分裂成兩派”不符合中文習慣，且時態不對，可改為“撒切爾女爵的保守黨曾在40年前率領英國加入歐共體，如今已分裂成兩派”；之前說“分裂為兩派”，之后就應當說“一派如何，另一派如何”；an arm's-length relationship一般翻譯為“‘正常’關系”或者“有限度的親密關系”，這里也可翻譯為“不要過于緊密”。**
Even the fiercest British critics of the EU are astonished by the speed at which things are moving. Parliamentary rebellions over Europe are becoming easier and easier to organise. Euroscepticism is hardening in the Conservative Party, in much the same way as social conservatism has gone from being a powerful current in America's Republican Party to an intolerant orthodoxy. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which wants to leave the EU, has abruptly moved from the political margins to the mainstream. A referendum on Britain's membership of the EU now seems a matter of timing.
即使是英國最激烈的歐盟批評家也驚嘆于事情發展的速度。反歐盟的議會越來越容易組織。保守黨中的歐洲懷疑主義正在變強，正如美國共和黨中的社會保守主義從主要力量到令人難以忍受的正統主義。想要脫離歐盟的英國獨立黨，突然從政治邊緣走向主流。英國去留歐盟的公投，現在看來只是時間問題。
**Parliamentary rebellion不是“反歐盟的議會”，而是“議會里的歐盟反對派/反對活動”；“正如美國共和黨中的社會保守主義從主要力量到令人難以忍受的正統主義”太長，而且結構弄錯了，in much the same way as可翻譯為“這情形正好像/正如”，下面的意思是“社會保守派不再是美國共和黨中的強大勢力，而成了不容反對的正統”，intolerant不是“難以忍受”，而是“不容許反駁、不寬容”；“英國獨立黨”作為專有名詞，應當括號注釋出原文；wants翻譯為“主張”更好；abruptly翻譯為“忽然/出人意料”比“突然”要好；“走向主流”不如“成為主流”；a matter of timing翻譯為“是遲早的事”比“只是時間問題”更地道些。**
Continental Europeans are surprised too—and annoyed. They are bewildered that the British should be talking of leaving a club that many believe has shifted decisively in a free-trading, Anglo-Saxon direction in the past two decades. They also resent the way Britain seems to be using the threat of an exit as a bargaining tool, especially at a time when the euro is in crisis. As they see it, Britain wants to carve out a privileged place for itself in the European club, where it can enjoy free trade without any of the other membership rules. In Berlin and Rome, political leaders argue that Britain needs to make up its mind once and for all: does it want to be in or out?
歐洲大陸也感到驚訝——并且煩惱。他們都感到很困惑，英國應該在二十年前，很多人毅然轉移自由貿易，盎格魯 - 撒克遜的方向的時候談論離開俱樂部。他們也憎恨英國似乎把威脅退出作為討價還價的工具，尤其是在歐元處于危機之中時。在他們看來，英國想在歐洲俱樂部為自己開拓出一個特殊的位置，在那里可以享受自由貿易卻不用遵守任何其他的會員規則。在柏林和羅馬，政治領導人認為，英國需要立刻下定決心，一勞永逸：去還是留？
**annoyed不是“煩惱”，是“惱火”；第二句的意思完全弄錯了，原文的意思是“過去20年里，歐盟的許多國家已經堅定地轉向了盎格魯-撒克遜式的自由貿易，英國現在竟然在討論是否應當離開這個群體，歐陸各國對此十分困惑”；euro翻譯為“歐元”是準確的；“開拓”與“位置”搭配不當，可改為“謀得”或“打造”；once and for all沒有“立刻”的意思，直接翻譯為“徹底”即可。**
Oops! 啊哦！
For an economically liberal newspaper that has been sceptical of much that Brussels does, a British exit would be a double tragedy. Britons would suffer far more than they currently realise, as we explain in detail in our briefing this week. Europe would be damaged too. Britain has stood for free trade and low regulation, so without it the union would be more lethargic and left ever further behind by America and the emerging world.
對布魯塞爾的所作所為一直持懷疑態度的經濟自由派報紙表示，英國的退出將是一個雙重悲劇。英國人的遭遇將壞到遠非他們現在所能想象，具體情況我們將在這周的簡報作出解釋。歐洲也將受損。英國一直主張自由貿易，少量監管，所以缺少了它的聯盟將更加了無生氣，越來越落后于美國和新興世界。
**第一句翻譯錯了，沒看出來newspaper指的就是這本雜志（后面說的our briefing this week可佐證），另外應當注明布魯塞爾所在的比利時是這段時間的歐盟輪值主席國；a double tragedy的a不應翻譯，直接說“雙重悲劇”即可；the economist的briefing欄目翻譯為什么名字，應當遵從習俗，如果沒有專門的翻譯，可參考現有雜志對應欄目的名字：“動態”、“快報”、“簡報”，或保留原名不翻譯也可；“歐洲也將受損”不通順；low regulation翻譯為“少量監管”搭配不當，可改為“寬松監管”；“聯盟將更加了無生氣”的搭配不當，可改為“聯盟的活力更匱乏/低落”，left even further behind不是“越來越落后”，而是“越發落后”。**
The speediest way for Britain to tumble out would be an "In or Out" referendum called by a prime minister frightened by rising anti-Europe feeling in Parliament and the country as a whole. David Cameron, Britain's prime minister, has tried to resist this, hinting instead that Britons would be given a choice between the status quo and a more detached relationship. But few are satisfied with that. Conservative MPs look over their right shoulders at UKIP and clamour for a sharper choice.
英國退出的最快方式將是舉行由首相號召的“去留”公投。英國首相戴維·卡梅倫，對議會及全國范圍內越來越高漲的反歐盟情緒感到害怕。他試圖抵抗，暗示與其反歐盟，英國可以在現狀和更超脫的關系中做一個選擇。但幾乎沒人感到滿意。保守黨議員擔心獨立黨，叫嚷著需要一個更清晰的選擇。
**第一句是個長句，翻譯時應切斷，它有幾個部分，應當妥善組織：“公民和議員共同的反歐盟情緒高漲”，“這種情緒嚇到首相”，“首相發起公投”，“這是英國脫離歐盟最快的辦法”；之前只是做邏輯的分析，到第二句才說到現任首相卡梅倫，這類句子不能直接按英文結構翻譯，可改為“曾試圖抵抗這種情緒的英國首相卡梅倫暗示，”；instead不是“與其反抗”，而是“還有其他主張”的意思；detached翻譯為“超脫”不如“松散”或“孤立”，因為”超脫“意指“置身事外（公平、公正）”；最后一句完全翻譯錯了，look over their right shoulders at UKIP中，look over不是固定搭配，over是與shoulders搭配的，意思是“保守黨議員看著更右傾的UKIP”。**
Another route out involves a diplomatic slip. The cleverer Eurosceptics, including Mr Cameron, do not want Britain to leave; they just want to bring back some powers from Brussels. But their efforts to do so are making things worse. Last year almost all other EU members lined up against Mr Cameron, who was trying to block a fiscal compact to help resolve the euro crisis. The British now hope that tightening euro-zone integration provides a chance for Mr Cameron to negotiate looser ties. They could be wrong. Other countries are tiring of British demands. Many, including Germany, would prefer to avoid a British exit, but they are not so desperate to keep Mr Cameron in that they are prepared to concede much in the way of social and labour-market regulation. And some, such as France, might positively welcome the departure of the club's most awkward member. Bad-tempered negotiations would increase the likelihood of an “out” vote in a British referendum.
另一條出路則涉及到外交。聰明的歐洲懷疑論者，包括卡梅倫先生，都不希望英國退出，他們只是想從布魯塞爾討回更多的權力。但他們越這么努力，事情卻變得越糟糕。去年，幾乎所有其他歐盟成員都一致反對卡梅倫，盡管他竭力阻止財政緊湊以幫助解決歐元危機。英國現在希望歐元區整合的收緊能夠給卡梅倫提供一個松綁談判的機會。他們可能錯了。其他國家已經對英國的要求感到厭倦。包括德國在內的許多國家都不希望英國退出，但他們也沒有絕望到在社會和勞動力市場的監管方式上讓步以留住卡梅倫先生。而另一些國家，比如法國，則會很高興俱樂部中最麻煩的成員離開。憤怒的談判更增加了英國全民公投“去”的可能性。
**第一句的slip沒翻譯出來，這里的slip意思明顯是the act or an instance of departing secretly，也就是“偷偷離開”；cleverer應翻譯為“更聰明的”，直接翻譯為“聰明”顯得其他人都“不聰明”，有誤；Eurosceptics開頭大寫，是專有名詞，國內有翻譯為”歐元懷疑派“的，如果不確認通行譯法，需要在譯文后用括號注明原文；“聰明的歐洲懷疑論者，包括卡梅倫先生，都不希望英國退出”不符合中文習慣，可改為“包括卡梅倫先生在內的更聰明的歐元懷疑論派都不希望英國退出”；bring back翻譯為“討回”色彩不對，可改為“拿回”；But their efforts to do so are making things worse沒有“越…越…”的意思；去年其他歐盟成員反對卡梅倫的原因是who was trying to block a fiscal compact to help resolve the euro crisis，也就是卡梅倫阻止一項旨在解決歐元危機的財政協約，這里把原文的意思徹底弄反了；“歐元區整合的收緊”中“收緊”意思不明，可能是抬高門檻也可能是緊密聯系，應當用“歐元區的加強整合”；并不存在“松綁談判”，原文的意思是“就更松散的關系協商”；“他們可能錯了”不如“他們大概弄錯了”；“他們也沒有絕望到在社會和勞動力市場的監管方式上讓步以留住卡梅倫先生”，這里看出了原文的so…that…結構，但desperate翻譯錯了，不是“絕望”而是“拼命”，所以可改為“他們也不愿賭上社會和勞動力市場監管方式的讓步，以留住卡梅倫先生”；bad-tempered翻譯為“憤怒的”不對，應該翻譯為“在這種糟糕情緒下的”更好。**
Little sovereignty, large cost 小主權，大成本
And what if Britain left? It could grab a few benefits quickly. The nation would save about ￡8 billion ($13 billion) a year in net budget contributions. Freed of the common agricultural policy, its food could become cheaper. If it pulled out of the single market, it could do away with annoying labour directives. The City would not have to worry so much about a financial-transaction tax and creeping European finance rules.
那么如果英國退出了歐盟呢？有幾個好處迅速可以體現。英國每年可以節省大約8億英鎊（13億美元）貢獻給歐盟的凈預算。脫離了共同農業政策，食物也會更便宜。退出了單一市場，就不用煩惱歐盟對勞動力的監管。金融城也不用擔心太多金融交易稅和逐漸上升歐洲財務規則。
**8 billion單位弄錯了，是80億英鎊，130億美元；do away with是固定搭配，意思是“干掉/殺死”，所以不是“不用煩勞歐盟對勞動力的監管”，而是“再沒有煩人/麻煩的勞動法規”；worry so much about中的much是用來修飾“擔心”的，而不是“金融交易稅”的，creeping也翻譯錯了，真正的意思是“進展緩慢”而不是“逐漸上升”。**
Yet these gains would be greatly outweighed by the costs of a British exit, which would dent trade with a market that accounts for half of Britain's exports. The carmakers that use Britain as their European operations base would gradually drift away, along with large parts of the financial-services industry. Britain would have to renegotiate dozens of bilateral trade deals from a much weaker position than it enjoyed as a member of the EU. It would cut a greatly diminished figure on the world stage. It would have bought some sovereignty, but at an extraordinary cost to Britain—and its partners.
然而，英國退出的成本將大大超過這些收益，出口貿易市場的一半將被削弱。把英國作為其歐洲業務基地的汽車制造商將逐漸撤離，大部分的金融服務行業也會隨之撤離。英國將不得不以比歐盟成員弱得多的地位，重新進行幾十個雙邊貿易談判。英國在世界舞臺上的影響也將急劇下降。退出也許能帶來一些主權，但是英國——甚至歐盟都會付出慘重的代價。
**“出口貿易市場的一半將被削弱”翻譯錯了，原文的意思有兩個：“歐盟這個市場占據了英國出口的一半”，“英國退出給予這個市場的生意沉重一擊”；“把英國作為其歐洲業務基地”累贅，可改為“以英國為歐洲業務基地”；“英國將不得不以比歐盟成員弱得多的地位”理解起來比較繞，可改為“失去了歐盟成員國身份，英國不得不以弱勢得多的地位”；“急劇”的意思是“快而劇烈”，同時強調速度和程度，但原文只提到了程度，所以應該是“大為降低”；“帶來一些主權”不如“拿回/獲得部分主權”；partner不是“歐盟”，是“伙伴”。**
Among those who want out, there is talk of finding an accommodation by which Britain would leave the EU but still trade freely with it (the equivalent of eating in a restaurant but not paying the cover charge). Some Eurosceptics suggest Britain could join Norway in the European Economic Area. That would leave it bound by EU regulations that it would be almost powerless to shape—a situation many Britons, especially Eurosceptics, would find intolerable. Others hope Britain might get the same deal as Switzerland, which is a little further removed but gets good access to the single market. It wouldn't: the EU already regrets giving Switzerland the Swiss option, so it is scarcely likely to give bigger, more troublesome Britain the same deal. Again, disappointment and a referendum beckon.
那些要退出的人中，有人說英國可以在離開歐盟的同時保持與其自由貿易（相當于在餐館吃飯卻不付錢）。某些歐洲懷疑論者建議英國可以像挪威一樣加入歐洲經濟區。這樣一來，英國就不能影響歐盟的法規而必須受歐盟約束了——這種情形，大多數英國人，尤其是歐洲懷疑論者都無法忍受。其他人則希望英國得到跟瑞士一樣的待遇，雖然跟歐盟離得遠，但還是在歐盟市場。但歐盟已經后悔給瑞士特權，所以幾乎不可能給更大，更麻煩的英國同樣的待遇。說來說去都是失望，只能全民公投了。
**“英國就不能影響歐盟的法規而必須受歐盟約束了”這句話比較繞，原文的重點也不突出，可改為“英國就只有受歐盟法規約束的份，而沒有參與制定的份了”；瑞士并不是“還在歐盟市場”，而是“與單一市場的交流相當方便”。**
Can anything be done to prevent this slow-motion disaster? Quite possibly, it can. Oddly, Mr Cameron should try emulating Baroness Thatcher. She is remembered today as a handbag-swinger who commanded Brussels to retreat, but she also knew how to make common cause with other European leaders. Unfortunately, the quality of British EU diplomacy has deteriorated in recent years. Obsessed with repatriating powers and with appearing tough to their domestic audience, Britain's current leaders seem to have forgotten the art of dealmaking. Mr Cameron has a good case to make, especially when he argues for extending the single market to promote growth. He also has powerful sympathisers in Europe, including Germany's Angela Merkel, but they seldom become useful allies because Britain is seen as a blackmailing zealot.
有沒有什么措施能阻止這種慢動作的災難？有的，很可能有。說來也怪，卡梅倫先生應該效仿撒切爾夫人。人們仍然記得她“鐵娘子”的風范，命令布魯塞爾撤退，但她也知道如何與其他歐洲國家領導人合作。不幸的是，近年來英國歐盟外交的質量越來越惡化。英國現在的領導人癡迷于遣返權力和以強勢的姿態出現在國民面前，他好像忘了交易談判的藝術。卡梅倫也不是沒有道理 尤其是在他支持擴展單一市場以促進增長時。他也強烈的同情歐洲，包括德國總理默克爾，但他們成不了強力的盟友，因為英國被看作是一個勒索狂。
**“慢動作的災難”不容易理解，可改為“緩慢發生的災難”；Oddly的意思不是“說來也怪”，而是“相反”（因為撒切爾夫人給人印象都是強硬派，而上文說應當和歐盟搞好關系，所以這里給出“學習撒切爾夫人”的建議顯得很奇怪），所以不妨改為“出乎大家意料”或者“反其道而行之”；handbag-swinger的意思是“揮舞手提包的人”，而不是“鐵娘子”；commanded翻譯為“命令”不及“喝令”；“英國歐盟外交的質量”翻譯不對，應當是“英國對歐盟外交的質量”；“越來越惡化”應該較為“日益惡化”或者“越來越差”才通順；“遣返權力”不對，應該是“拿會權力”；“交易談判的藝術”累贅，直接說“談判的藝術”即可；Mr Cameron has a good case to make的意思是“他可以大有作為”，而不是“卡梅倫也不是沒有道理”；卡梅倫是“被歐洲同情”而不是“同情歐洲”。**
The other priority should be educating Britons about what exactly a British exit would really involve. Big business and the City, whose interests lie solidly inside the EU, need to take a stand. The Labour Party, which has been playing a cynical and dangerous game, also needs to change its line. In October Labour MPs voted with anti-European Tories over the EU budget, handing the government its first major defeat. By strengthening those who want to leave Europe, Labour is making it more likely that a Conservative government will have to promise an in-or-out referendum. If it does, Labour may be bounced into promising the same.
還有一個可以優先考慮的措施就是告訴英國人，英國退出歐盟究竟意味著什么。利益依賴歐盟的大企業和金融城必須選擇立場。一直憤世嫉俗，玩著危險游戲的工黨，也必須改變他們的路線。十月份，工黨議員和反歐盟的保守黨托利派投票反對歐盟預算，成功的擊敗了政府。工黨通過加強退出歐盟的力量來使保守黨政府承諾去留公投。如果真這樣，工黨也將不得不做出相同的承諾。
**“還有一個可以優先考慮的措施”翻譯錯了，應當是“另一點當務之急/要緊的事”；“利益依賴歐盟”把solid漏掉了；“take a stand”不是“選擇立場”而是“表明立場”；“也必須改變他們的路線”累贅，可改為“也必須改變路線”；用“成功的擊敗了政府”翻譯handing the government its first major defeat，主被動關系弄錯了，應改為“給了政府第一次重大挫折”；“工黨通過加強退出歐盟的力量”不像中文，應改為“工黨為退出歐盟的力量助陣/捧場”；最后那句完全翻譯錯了，be bounced into意思是“匆忙同意某決定”，所以應該是“工黨可能要爭分奪秒去贊同”。**
Most of the heavy lifting, at home as well as in Brussels, will have to be done by Mr Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne. They need to remind Britons of the victories that have been won within the EU and of the dangers of falling out of it. And above all, they need to rediscover the virtues of muddling along and keeping options open. The referendum is a good example. Rushing to hold a simple in-or-out vote sounds clear and decisive. But stalling for time is wiser. The government should resist demands for a vote at least until it becomes clear what sort of Europe Britain would be voting to remain in or leave. This sort of wait-and-see approach may feel unsatisfactory, but it is what kept Britain out of the euro.
不管在英國還是在布魯塞爾，卡梅倫和他的大臣喬治·奧斯本都還有很多繁重的工作要做。他們必須提醒英國人他們在歐盟贏得的勝利和退出歐盟的危險。最重要的是，他們需要重新發現等待的好處，保持選項開放。全民公投就是個好例子。急于舉行簡單的去留公投聽起來明確而果斷。但拖延時間顯然更明智。政府應該抵制投票的請求，至少應該等到事情更明朗，明確英國到底會投票去還是留。這種等待和觀望的態度也許令人不滿意，但至少能阻止英國退出歐元區。
**“不管在英國還是在布魯塞爾，卡梅倫和他的大臣喬治·奧斯本都還有很多繁重的工作要做”翻譯錯了，在英國和布魯塞爾的是“繁重的工作”，而不是“卡梅倫和他的大臣喬治·奧斯本”，而且這里應當注明奧斯本是“財政大臣”；“在歐盟贏得的勝利”改為“在歐盟已經取得的勝利”更準確；muddling along的意思是“得過且過”，不是簡單的“等待”，可翻譯為“敷衍塞責”或“虛與委蛇”；keeping options open翻譯為“選項開放”錯了，其本意是“不做決斷，留出空間/退路”，所以可以翻譯為“擱置問題”；“急于舉行簡單的去留公投”不妥，這種說法的重點在于“急于”，與后面的“聽起來”搭配不當，應改為“即刻/立即/馬上”；“政府抵制公投”的“抵制”不對，應當是“拒絕/否決”，at least until直接翻譯為中文很困難，可以改為“即便要公投，也應當”；what sort of Europe Britain would be voting to remain in or leave的意思理解有差錯，Europe和Britain之間是分開的，意思是“英國要投票決定去留的歐盟是什么樣子”；it is what kept Britain out of the euro是過去時態的強調句型，意思是“過去英國就是靠這招才沒有加入歐元區”。**
Britain's position in Europe may become untenable, if the resolution of the economic crisis binds the countries of the euro zone ever closer and all other EU countries join. But that is not a certainty, and nor is Britain's steady marginalisation. Difficult and often humiliating as it may be, the best course is to stick close to Europe, and try to bend it towards Britain.
如果經濟危機的解決讓歐元區國家結合更緊密并且使得其他歐盟國家加入歐元區，那么英國在歐洲的地位將可能難以維持。但那也不一定，英國也不一定逐步邊緣化。盡管困難而且可能遭受羞辱，但是最好的方法還是緊貼歐洲，并試圖讓其偏向英國。
**if the resolution of the economic crisis binds the countries of the euro zone ever closer and all other EU countries join，這句話理解錯了，resolution不是“經濟危機的解決”而是“經濟危機的解決方案”，而且other EU countries join的對象是這個“解決方案”而不是“歐元區”；“但那也不一定”偏口語化，應改為“但這并非定數/還有變數”；humiliating翻譯為“遭受羞辱”不如“丟面子”；bend it towards Britain翻譯為“讓其偏向英國”不如“扭轉它對英國的態度”。**
## 總評
通常，一篇長文章的翻譯難度要遠高于若干篇短文章，因為在文章內部需要維持一致性，如本文始終談的是英國和歐洲的關系，但是這種一致性又會從多個側面展開，本文就談到，去或離，各有什么好處壞處，以及英國內部各派力量的現狀和態度。所以這些，都是需要譯者在閱讀時從整體理解和把握的，不能弄錯。
本篇譯文有許多地方之所以弄錯了，就是沒有跳出字句的層面，從整體上理解原文。“工黨通過加強退出歐盟的力量來使保守黨政府承諾去留公投。如果真這樣，工黨也將不得不做出相同的承諾”就是典型的例子，工黨和保守黨的態度前文已經說明，既然工黨要促進公投，為什么“果真如此”之后，工黨又要“不得不做出相同的承諾”呢？這明顯是翻譯錯了，即便只看中文也可以知道這里不通。
譯文的另一大問題是有好幾處弄錯原文的結構，尤其是誰限定誰，誰修飾誰。最明顯的例子就是Most of the heavy lifting, at home as well as in Brussels, will have to be done by Mr Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne翻譯為“不管在英國還是在布魯塞爾，卡梅倫和他的大臣喬治·奧斯本都還有很多繁重的工作要做”，還有worry so much about……，其中的much是表示worry的程度，翻譯成“擔心太多金融交易稅”則是用“太多”用來修飾“金融交易稅”了。如果譯者更認真一些，或者對英文的理解能力更深刻一些，是可以避免這類錯誤的。
