移民問題可能影響英國退歐公投結果
In the referendum campaign on Britain’s membership of the EU, each side has one trump card that they will play repeatedly until voting day on June 23. The Remain camp will talk about the economy. The Leavers will talk about immigration.
在決定英國是否留在歐盟(EU)內的公投前的造勢活動中，雙方各有一張王牌；在6月23日的投票日之前，雙方都會反覆打出自己的那張王牌。留歐陣營會談經濟。退歐陣營則會談移民。
Many diehard Remainers regard the Leave campaign’s stress on immigration as proof that it is a movement that ultimately rests on racism and xenophobia. But immigration is a legitimate issue in this campaign. Indeed, the Leave 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 hit 333,000, the second-highest number on record, with about half that number coming from the EU.
許多死忠的留歐派人士認爲，退歐運動對移民問題的強調，證明退歐運動歸根結底根植於種族主義和仇外心理。但移民是這場“去留之爭”中的一個合理問題。事實上，退歐陣營如果不利用這個問題就太愚蠢了，因爲選民們在被問到擔憂哪些問題時，通常會把移民問題放在問題名單的首位。2015年，進入英國的淨移民人數達到了33.3萬，這是有紀錄以來第二高的數字；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 three of the themes that the “Outers” most like to stress: loss of sovereignty, the faulty judgment of elites and the difficulty of achieving meaningful reform of the EU.
對退歐運動來說，來自歐洲的移民是天賜的良機，因爲這些移民完美地體現了三個主題：主權的喪失，精英的錯誤判斷以及歐盟很難實現有意義的改革。這3個主題正是退歐派人士最喜歡強調的若干主題中的3個。
Hardcore Eurosceptics in the Conservative party have been complaining about loss of sovereignty for decades. But the things that enraged them, such as the EU’s working time directive, are not the sorts of issues that normal people lose sleep over.
保守黨中的鐵桿疑歐論者數十年來一直在抱怨英國喪失了主權。但激怒他們的事情，比如歐盟的《工作時間指令》(working time directive)，並不是會讓普通人夜不能寐的那種問題。
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 past decade, 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 control the flow of migrants from the rest of the EU. The EU’s rules on the free movement of people mandate that all EU citizens have the right to live and work anywhere within the 28-country bloc.
相反，移民則提供了一個有意義的現實例子，反映出“喪失主權”實際上到底意味着什麼。在過去10年超過100萬東歐移民來到英國以後，一些英國選民如今想要對移民叫停。這讓英國首相戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)處於一種尷尬的境地，他不得不向民衆解釋，英國政府其實無力控制來自歐盟其他地方的移民流入。歐盟的人員自由流動規則規定，所有歐盟公民都有權在歐盟28個成員國中的任何地方生活和工作。
One of the basic characteristics of a nation state has traditionally been the right to decide who can live in the country and enjoy the benefits of citizenship. Many voters instinctively feel that this is the way it should still be. But that traditional sovereign right has indeed been sacrificed (or pooled, if you prefer) by EU members.
民族國家的一個基本特徵就是，有權決定誰能在這個國家生活並享有公民福利。許多選民本能地認爲事情如今仍應如此。但歐盟成員國實際上已經犧牲了（如果你願意，也可以說是共享了）這種傳統的主權。
The British government’s failure to anticipate the scale of migration from eastern Europe has also fed the public’s scepticism about official pronouncements on the EU. Just before the enlargement of the EU in 2004 to include 10 new members, the government predicted that an average of 13,000 migrants a year would move to Britain from the newly extended bloc. In the event, the figure was more than 10 times that. After this miscalculation, it is hardly surprising if the public now reacts sceptically to government figures about the economic impact of leaving the EU.
英國政府當年未能預料到東歐移民的規模，這也催生了公衆對有關歐盟的官方意見持懷疑態度。就在歐盟2004年擴大，納入10個新成員前不久，英國政府還曾預言，平均每年只會有1.3萬名來自歐盟新成員國的移民進入英國。在政府的這次誤判後，公衆對其公佈的有關退歐經濟影響的數據抱以懷疑也就並不奇怪了。
Once the scale of the immigration into Britain became clear, the UK government tried to secure changes in the EU’s rules on the free movement of people. In October, in the early stages of his attempted re-negotiation with the EU, Mr Cameron promised to “sort” the issue and insisted, “I will not take no for an answer.”
看清進入英國的移民規模後，英國政府曾試圖促使歐盟改變有關人員自由流動的規定。2014年10月，在剛剛開始嘗試與歐盟重新談判時，卡梅倫曾承諾將“釐清”這個問題，並稱將“不達目的決不罷休”。
But the Cameron re-negotiation merely highlighted a third Eurosceptic complaint about the EU: that it is an organisation that finds it all-but-impossible to reform itself.
但卡梅倫的重新談判不過是凸顯了疑歐論者對歐盟的第三條抱怨：這個組織幾乎不可能對自身進行改革。
The rules on free movement are one of the “four freedoms” that are regarded as basic to EU membership. But even if there had been leaders around the negotiating table who agreed with Mr Cameron that something needs to change, it was always going to be impossible to secure the agreement of each of the other 27 member states, many of which were under strong domestic pressure to fight for continued free movement of people. Instead, Mr Cameron had to settle for a much weaker reform: delays in the payment of welfare benefits to EU migrants.
有四項自由被視爲歐盟成員資格的基礎，人員的自由流動就是其中之一。即使在談判桌上有一些領導人認同卡梅倫的觀點（即，某些事情需要改革），獲取其他27個成員國中每一個國家的認同也始終是不可能的（這些國家中許多都承受着強大的國內壓力，要求爭取延續人員的自由流動）。於是，卡梅倫只得滿足於一項力度弱得多的改革：推遲向歐盟移民支付福利津貼。
Of course, it is also true that there are elements of dishonesty and xenophobia in the way the Leave campaign has used immigration. The Leavers have sometimes deliberately blurred the distinction 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 most prominent Leave campaigners, has even evoked sexual assaults by migrants in Germany as a reason to quit the EU.
當然，退歐運動利用移民問題的方式也的確存在不誠實和仇外的成分。退歐派人士有時會故意模糊來自歐盟的合法移民與尋求庇護的中東難民之間的區別——考慮到當前的歐洲難民危機，這是一種強大的戰術。退歐運動的旗手之一奈傑爾•法拉奇(Nigel Farage)甚至曾援引德國移民性侵案作爲退出歐盟的理由。
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 in more migrants from India and Pakistan. That idea is unlikely to delight the Leavers’ core vote in the white working class.
同時，退歐運動還暗示，如果英國離開歐盟，英國就可以實施讓更多印度和巴基斯坦移民進入英國的移民政策，試圖通過這一想法，吸引原籍在歐洲以外的那部分英國選民的支持。但退歐陣營在白人工薪階層中的核心支持者不太可能喜歡這個想法。
As far as I can see, large-scale migration from Europe has benefited Britain. And many important institutions, from the National Health Service to my local coffee shop, would struggle to get by without it. But then again, as an affluent Londoner, it is predictable that I would take a relaxed view of immigration.
在我看來，來自歐洲的大規模移民讓英國受益。如果沒有移民，從英國國家衛生服務體系(NHS)到我家附近咖啡店的許多重要機構，都將很難維持運轉。不過話說回來，像我這樣生活殷實的倫敦人，對移民抱着從容的態度也是可以預料的。
However, at a time when real wages are stagnant, house prices are rising and public services are creaking, many British people are susceptible to the argument that high immigration is making such problems worse.
然而，在實際工資停滯不前，房價越來越高，公共服務不堪重負之際，許多英國人容易接受這樣的觀點：大規模移民正在讓這些問題雪上加霜。
Are these concerns about immigration — real and imagined — enough to overwhelm the economic and strategic case for staying inside the EU? Not as far as I am concerned. But I will not be remotely surprised if Britain decides differently on June 23.
這些有關移民的顧慮（無論是切實存在的還是子虛烏有的），是否足以壓倒留在歐盟內的經濟和戰略上的理由？在我看來不會。但如果英國在6月23日做出了另外的選擇，我也一點兒都不會感到驚訝。
