英國退歐對倫敦金融城不利

　　The City of London is rarely starry eyed aboutanything. But even by its hard-boiled standards, theSquare Mile has always been ambivalent in its attitude to the EU. While it relishes theopportunity presented by the single market in financial services, it also fears that Brusselsmight be some sort of Trojan horse for continental countries that are intent on snatching itsbusiness away.

　　倫敦金融城(City of London)很少會對什么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(tài)度上也始終有些矛盾。盡管它享受著單一市場為金融服務(wù)帶來的機遇，但它也擔心，歐盟可能是打算搶走其業(yè)務(wù)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 Milehas clashed with Brussels over the possibility of an EU-wide tax on financial transactions andthe latter’s desire to place curbs on bankers’ pay. The City also worries that the regulatorychange accompanying banking union may ultimately prove to be a ploy to bind London in redtape, eroding its competitiveness as a financial centre. David Cameron’s renegotiation ofBritain’s EU membership has sought to establish “safeguards” to protect against this perceivedthreat.

　　在金融危機以來的幾年里，這些擔憂不斷加劇。倫敦金融城與布魯塞爾方面發(fā)生了沖突，后者不僅希望在歐盟范圍內(nèi)征收金融交易稅，而且還想要限制銀行家薪酬。倫敦金融城還擔心，與銀行業(yè)聯(lián)盟相伴隨的監(jiān)管變化可能最終證明是一個用繁文縟節(jié)束縛倫敦的計謀，侵蝕其作為金融中心的競爭力。英國首相戴維慍蕓倫(DavidCameron)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”防范這種感知到的威脅。

　　Nonetheless, when the possibility of exit is raised, few big financial institutions want tosurrender that extra business. They would rather see the UK stay and fight its corner thandepart.

　　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(gòu)愿意交出這塊額外的業(yè)務(wù)。它們寧愿看到英國留下來捍衛(wèi)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 thefew areas in which the UK is an undisputed global leader. The country runs a substantialsurplus in trade in financial services, including with the EU. Roughly a quarter of the UK’sfinancial sector business involves the single market, equivalent to 2 per cent of grossdomestic product. And balanced on top is a wider array of professional services. Remove aslice of that activity and the prosperity of the whole would be materially reduced.

　　它們這么想是正確的。盡管聲譽受創(chuàng)，但倫敦金融城依然是少數(shù)幾個英國充當無可辯駁的全球領(lǐng)軍者的領(lǐng)域之一。在金融服務(wù)貿(mào)易(包括與歐盟的金融服務(wù)貿(mào)易)中，英國處于巨額盈余。近四分之一的英國金融服務(wù)業(yè)務(wù)涉及單一市場，相當于國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值(GDP)的2%。以之為基礎(chǔ)，上面是更多種類的專業(yè)服務(wù)。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 withthe EU whether we were in or out, they argue. And anyway, non-EU markets are growingsignificantly 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 theirEuropean operations in London and trade freely throughout the single market. And as thesefirms 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(fā)生。他們辯稱，無論我們是否退出歐盟，我們都可以繼續(xù)穩(wěn)定地與歐盟開展貿(mào)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(guān)”特權(quán)，經(jīng)濟活動將會漂到英吉利海峽對面。非歐盟企業(yè)將不再能夠?qū)W洲業(yè)務(wù)總部設(shè)在倫敦，也不再能夠在整個單一市場自由貿(mào)易。而隨著這些企業(yè)在巴黎或者法蘭克福開設(shè)辦公室，它們倫敦部門的規(guī)模和影響力將會縮小。

　　It is simply fallacious to argue that access could be preserved without the price ofmembership. Stick within the wider European Economic Area à la Norway and you retain thecosts and rules without any influence over them. Swiss-style bilateral deals do not come with apassport attached.

　　有人認為，不用成為歐盟成員國也能保留進入單一市場的權(quán)利，這顯然是荒謬的。像挪威那樣留在更廣泛的歐洲經(jīng)濟區(qū)(European Economic Area)內(nèi)，你仍得承擔成本并遵守規(guī)則，卻對它們沒有任何影響力。瑞士模式的雙邊協(xié)議不會帶上一本護照。

　　There is moreover no regulatory nirvana outside the EU that would offset the erosion ofbusiness resulting from Brexit. London’s advantages as a financial centre were never down tothe light-touch regulation of the boom years. And since the crisis Britain has rightly been atthe forefront of tightening the rule book, intellectually and in practical terms.

　　此外，在歐盟之外不存在一個監(jiān)管天堂來抵消退出歐盟對英國商業(yè)的侵蝕。倫敦作為金融中心的優(yōu)勢從來不在于繁榮期間的輕度監(jiān)管。而自金融危機以來，英國一直正確地處于收緊規(guī)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. MrCameron’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(jiān)管框架，這當然是合理的?？穫惖谋Ｗo措施絕非自動防故障裝置，英國的利益必須得到主動捍衛(wèi)。

　　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 EuropeanCentral Bank’s attempt to pull all euro-denominated clearing into the eurozone may have beendefeated 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(guī)則，或者以格外傷害倫敦的方式解讀監(jiān)管規(guī)則。歐洲央行(ECB)把所有以歐元計價的清算都集中到歐元區(qū)的企圖或許被挫敗了一次。但此類挑戰(zhàn)將會重現(xiàn)。

　　The way to deal with this is not to head for the exit. That would leave the UK with no defencesto mount against exclusion. No, if the City is to prosper, Britain needs to stay at theEuropean table, build alliances and defend this valuable turf.

　　解決這種挑戰(zhàn)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御措施。不，若要想讓倫敦金融城蓬勃發(fā)展，英國有必要留在歐盟，締結(jié)聯(lián)盟并捍衛(wèi)這個寶貴的地盤。