四个流动自由是欧盟精髓
欧盟的根本特征是什么?在我们开始讨论有关其未来的任何方案之前，我们得先搞清这个问题。
For me, the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community, answered the question conclusively. Article three says: “The activities of the Community shall include . . . the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods . . .; the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital.”
就我个人而言，1957年为建立欧洲经济共同体(European Economic Community)而签署的《罗马条约》(Treaty of Rome)结论性地回答了这一问题。《条约》第三条写道：“欧洲经济共同体的活动应包括……消除成员国之间关税和商品进出口量的限制……废除成员国之间人员、服务和资本自由流动的障碍。”
In other words, the very essence of the EU are the four freedoms: of movement for goods, services, capital and people. The four freedoms are to the EU what golf is to a golf club. You can play golf, watch others play golf, talk about golf, or join me at the 19th hole. But you cannot turn the golf club into a bingo hall unless everybody else agrees with you.
换句话说，欧盟的精髓是四个自由：商品、服务、资本和人员的流动自由。这四个自由之于欧盟，一如高尔夫球之于高尔夫俱乐部。你可以打高尔夫球，看别人打高尔夫球，谈论高尔夫球，或者是在会所酒吧跟我喝一杯，但你不能把一家高尔夫俱乐部变成一个宾果游戏厅——除非其他所有人都同意你的提议。
The first freedom, relating to goods, was clearly the priority when the Treaty of Rome was signed. Subsequent EU treaties have strengthened the other freedoms; not all are equally developed. The free movement of goods is the most advanced; some military goods are still restricted; and free movement of services is the least developed category of the four. The freedom of movement for citizens is fundamental.
《罗马条约》签订时，第一个自由——有关商品的——显然是首要事项。后续的欧盟条约加强了其他自由;这些自由发展得并不均衡。商品流动自由是最发达的，不过部分军品仍受限制;服务流动自由是这四个里最不发达的。公民流动自由是根本的。
UK prime minister Theresa May’s infamous “citizens of nowhere” remark explained the Brexit mentality better than anything else, because in the EU you are always a citizen of your home state and of the union itself, no matter where you live. This is the very essence of Europeanness.
英国首相特里萨•梅(Theresa May)臭名远扬地抨击“世界公民”，透彻揭示了英国退欧的心态，因为在欧盟，无论你生活在哪里，你永远是你的祖国和欧盟的公民。这是欧洲性的精髓。
There is a political and an economic logic behind the unity of the four freedoms. They constitute the ultimate trade-off in EU politics. The EU’s strength is to mediate between conflicting interests — large countries versus small, producers versus consumers, employers versus employees. While the roots of the old EEC were economic, as the name implied, it required a political and social component to keep it going. As a club of producers the EU would not have survived for long. Freedom of movement provided workers who were mobile with the ability to raise their income in other parts of the union. It also acted in a small way as a macroeconomic stabiliser.
这四个自由合一的背后有一个政治逻辑和一个经济逻辑。它们构成了欧盟政治中的终极取舍。欧盟的强项在于调解各种相互冲突的利益，包括大国与小国之间，生产者与消费者之间，雇主与雇员之间。虽然昔日的欧洲经济共同体的根基(顾名思义)是经济的，但它还需要一个政治和社会组成部分才能走下去。欧盟作为一个生产者俱乐部是无法久存的。迁徙自由让劳动者能够去欧盟其他地方提高自己的收入。它还起到较小的稳定宏观经济的作用。
I have read a couple of economic reports recently arguing that freedom of movement for people is not strictly a requirement for a single market. But at the very least there is a compelling logic behind the link between the two. One can divide the four freedoms into two categories: economic outputs — goods and services; and economic inputs — labour and capital. Can we restrict one without the others? Of course one can. Goods and services are not treated equally today, so why should capital and labour? But the logic of the four freedoms is not based on economic but political reasoning.
最近我读了两份经济报告，这些报告认为迁徙自由严格说来并不是单一市场的要求。但至少二者间联系的背后存在着一个有说服力的逻辑。人们可以将这四种自由分为两类：经济产出类(商品和服务)，以及经济投入类(劳动力和资本)。我们可以限制其中一个而放开其他吗?当然可以。既然商品和服务至今都没得到同等对待，资本和劳动力又凭什么非要得到同等对待?但四大自由的逻辑并不是基于经济原因，而是基于政治考量。
The inability to understand, or the refusal to accept, the four freedoms constitutes the deep reason behind Brexit. David Cameron famously misjudged it. The former UK prime minister tried and failed to get the EU to agree to a relaxation of the principle of free movement. To this day, there are people, on both sides of the debate, who argue that the UK can remain a member of the single market while imposing restrictions on free movement.
对四大自由的无法理解(或者拒绝接受)构成了英国退欧背后的深层原因。戴维•卡梅伦(David Cameron)出名地在这件事上作出误判。这位前首相试图让欧盟同意放宽自由流动的原则，结果失败了。直到今天，这场辩论的双方都仍有人认为，英国可以在限制自由流动的同时，依然是单一市场的一员。
If you want to think about various versions of the future of the EU, my advice would be to learn from Mr Cameron’s error. A Europe of “variable geometry” is certainly probable, indeed desirable, but it will not be one in which member states opt in and out of the four freedoms. Not everybody will end up in the eurozone, or the Schengen passport-free travel zone. The Eurocentric vision outlined by Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, in his annual state of the union speech in September, is far too static. Not everybody in Europe will want the same degree of centralisation. But all member states will need to accept the four freedoms. So will anyone who enters the EU in the future, or who re-enters after they have left. The freedoms come as a package.
如果你想思考欧盟各种版本的未来，我的建议是从卡梅伦的错误中汲取教训。一个“可变几何”的欧洲当然是可能的，的确是可取的，但它不会让成员国在四个自由中挑挑拣拣。不是每个成员国都会加入欧元区或申根护照自由旅行区。欧盟委员会(European Commission)主席让-克洛德•容克(Jean-Claude Juncker)在9月份的年度“盟情咨文”讲话中所勾勒的以欧洲为中心的愿景过于静止了。欧洲并不是所有人都想要同等程度的集中化。但所有成员国都需要接受这四大自由，未来加入欧盟的任何一个国家，或是离开之后又重新加入的国家也一样。这些自由是捆绑在一起的。
Their indivisibility is the reason why I am more sceptical than others about a new type of EU-UK association agreement that would allow Britain to reconnect with the EU. Such an agreement would not look much different from the membership the UK is walking away from. If freedom of movement is your problem now, you will have exactly the same problem with a future association agreement because the four freedoms will always constitute the intersection of the EU’s growing number of concentric circles.
正是由于它们的不可分割性，我比其他人更怀疑欧盟—英国之间的新型联系协议，该协议将允许英国与欧盟重新建立联系。这样的协议与英国正在告别的成员国资格看起来没有多大区别。如果你现在受不了迁徙自由，那么你也会受不了未来的联系协议，因为这四大自由将永远构成欧盟越来越多的同心圆的交集。
As the first chapters of the Treaty of Rome remind us, they always have.
正如《罗马条约》开篇提醒我们的那样，这些自由一直享有这样的地位。
