英國退歐將對倫敦金融城造成不利
The City of London is rarely starry eyed about anything. But even by its hard-boiled standards, the Square Mile has always been ambivalent in its attitude to the EU. While it relishes the opportunity presented by the single market in financial services, it also fears that Brussels might be some sort of Trojan horse for continental countries that are intent on snatching its business away.
倫敦金融城(City of London)很少會對什麼事抱有不切實際的幻想。但即便按照其冷峻的標準，倫敦金融城在對歐盟(EU)的態度上也始終有些矛盾。儘管它享受着單一市場爲金融服務帶來的機遇，但它也擔心，歐盟可能是打算搶走其業務的歐洲大陸國家派來的某種特洛伊木馬。
In the years since the financial crisis, the concerns have been in the ascendant. The Square Mile has clashed with Brussels over the possibility of an EU-wide tax on financial transactions and the latter’s desire to place curbs on bankers’ pay. The City also worries that the regulatory change accompanying banking union may ultimately prove to be a ploy to bind London in red tape, eroding its competitiveness as a financial centre. David Cameron’s renegotiation of Britain’s EU membership has sought to establish “safeguards” to protect against this perceived threat.
在金融危機以來的幾年裏，這些擔憂不斷加劇。倫敦金融城與布魯塞爾方面發生了衝突，後者不僅希望在歐盟範圍內徵收金融交易稅，而且還想要限制銀行家薪酬。倫敦金融城還擔心，與銀行業聯盟相伴隨的監管變化可能最終證明是一個用繁文縟節束縛倫敦的計謀，侵蝕其作爲金融中心的競爭力。英國首相戴維慍蕓倫(David Cameron)就英國歐盟成員國身份的重新談判，一直尋求建立“保護措施”防範這種感知到的威脅。
Nonetheless, when the possibility of exit is raised, few big financial institutions want to surrender that extra business. They would rather see the UK stay and fight its corner than depart.
然而，在英國退出歐盟的可能性上升之際，沒有幾家大型金融機構願意交出這塊額外的業務。它們寧願看到英國留下來捍衛自己的利益而不是退出歐盟。
They are right to do so. For all the reputational blows it has taken, the City remains one of the few areas in which the UK is an undisputed global leader. The country runs a substantial surplus in trade in financial services, including with the EU. Roughly a quarter of the UK’s financial sector business involves the single market, equivalent to 2 per cent of gross domestic product. And balanced on top is a wider array of professional services. Remove a slice of that activity and the prosperity of the whole would be materially reduced.
它們這麼想是正確的。儘管聲譽受創，但倫敦金融城依然是少數幾個英國充當無可辯駁的全球領軍者的領域之一。在金融服務貿易（包括與歐盟的金融服務貿易）中，英國處於鉅額盈餘。近四分之一的英國金融服務業務涉及單一市場，相當於國內生產總值(GDP)的2%。以之爲基礎，上面是更多種類的專業服務。若將這些活動去除一部分，整個英國的繁榮都會受到重大影響。
Brexiteers like to claim that this would not happen. We could continue to trade equably with the EU whether we were in or out, they argue. And anyway, non-EU markets are growing significantly faster. But without the “passporting” privileges that EU membership provides, activity would drift across the Channel. Non-EU firms would no longer be able to site their European operations in London and trade freely throughout the single market. And as these firms opened offices in Paris or Frankfurt, the size and reach of their London units would shrink.
主張英國退歐的人士喜歡宣稱，這種情況將不會發生。他們辯稱，無論我們是否退出歐盟，我們都可以繼續穩定地與歐盟開展貿易。何況，歐盟以外市場正以高得多的速度增長。但如果沒有歐盟成員國身份提供的“通關”特權，經濟活動將會漂到英吉利海峽對面。非歐盟企業將不再能夠將歐洲業務總部設在倫敦，也不再能夠在整個單一市場自由貿易。而隨着這些企業在巴黎或者法蘭克福開設辦公室，它們倫敦部門的規模和影響力將會縮小。
It is simply fallacious to argue that access could be preserved without the price of membership. Stick within the wider European Economic Area à la Norway and you retain the costs and rules without any influence over them. Swiss-style bilateral deals do not come with a passport attached.
有人認爲，不用成爲歐盟成員國也能保留進入單一市場的權利，這顯然是荒謬的。像挪威那樣留在更廣泛的歐洲經濟區(European Economic Area)內，你仍得承擔成本並遵守規則，卻對它們沒有任何影響力。瑞士模式的雙邊協議不會帶上一本護照。
There is moreover no regulatory nirvana outside the EU that would offset the erosion of business resulting from Brexit. London’s advantages as a financial centre were never down to the light-touch regulation of the boom years. And since the crisis Britain has rightly been at the forefront of tightening the rule book, intellectually and in practical terms.
此外，在歐盟之外不存在一個監管天堂來抵消退出歐盟對英國商業的侵蝕。倫敦作爲金融中心的優勢從來不在於繁榮期間的輕度監管。而自金融危機以來，英國一直正確地處於收緊規則的前沿，無論在思想上還是實踐中。
City observers are of course right to worry about the new European regulatory framework. Mr Cameron’s safeguards are far from fail-safe and Britain’s interests will need defending.
倫敦金融城的觀察人士擔憂新的歐洲監管框架，這當然是合理的。卡梅倫的保護措施絕非自動防故障裝置，英國的利益必須得到主動捍衛。
The antipathy of some member states to finance could lead to more onerous rules in future, or regulations being interpreted in ways that disproportionately hurt London. The European Central Bank’s attempt to pull all euro-denominated clearing into the eurozone may have been defeated in once. But such challenges will recur.
一些歐盟成員國對金融的厭惡可能導致未來出臺更繁瑣的規則，或者以格外傷害倫敦的方式解讀監管規則。歐洲央行(ECB)把所有以歐元計價的清算都集中到歐元區的企圖或許被挫敗了一次。但此類挑戰將會重現。
The way to deal with this is not to head for the exit. That would leave the UK with no defences to mount against exclusion. No, if the City is to prosper, Britain needs to stay at the European table, build alliances and defend this valuable turf.
解決這種挑戰的方式不是退歐。退歐將讓英國在受到排擠時沒有可用的防禦措施。不，若要想讓倫敦金融城蓬勃發展，英國有必要留在歐盟，締結聯盟並捍衛這個寶貴的地盤。
