獨(dú)立吧！倫敦

I can feel it in my bones, I can almost touch it — the Independent Republic of London. It’s an idea whose time has surely come.

我預(yù)感這就要發(fā)生了，幾乎伸手可及——倫敦獨(dú)立共和國(Independent Republic of London)。這個(gè)想法無疑已經(jīng)成熟了。

Scotland still has a burning independence flame, Catalonia had its unofficial referendum. Why not London? It dominates its country politically, culturally and economically like few other cities; it is the birthplace of modern democracy, Charlie Chaplin and Pret A Manger.

蘇格蘭的獨(dú)立火焰仍在燃燒，加泰羅尼亞舉行了非正式的獨(dú)立公投。倫敦為什么不行?它在政治、文化和經(jīng)濟(jì)上主導(dǎo)著自己所在的國家，幾乎沒有哪個(gè)城市能與之媲美;它是現(xiàn)代民主的發(fā)源地，卓別林(Charlie Chaplin)和Pret A Manger連鎖快餐店也在這里誕生。

Our population is two-thirds bigger than Scotland’s; our economy is two-thirds bigger than Catalonia’s. Per head, west London is the richest area in Europe — above Luxembourg, Hamburg and Brussels. Yet the capital has been outvoted by rural England. It is being dragged out of the EU against its will. It is under the control of a Conservative government it didn’t elect. Its brand of liberalism is out of the game. It’s not the specifics, it’s the principle. Shouldn’t we point out that it’s our ball, and we are taking it home?

我們的人口比蘇格蘭人口多三分之二;我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)模比加泰羅尼亞大三分之二。按人均收入衡量，西倫敦是歐洲最富有的地區(qū)——超過盧森堡、漢堡和布魯塞爾。但首都在選票上敵不過英格蘭鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)。它正在被迫脫離歐盟，這違背了它自身的意愿?？刂扑氖遣⒎撬x出的保守黨政府。倫敦特色的自由主義遭到排擠。關(guān)鍵不是細(xì)枝末節(jié)，而在于原則。我們難道不應(yīng)該指出，球?qū)儆谖覀?，現(xiàn)在我們要把它帶回家嗎?

Benedict Anderson, the sociologist, described nations as “imagined communities”. What are Londoners if not one people, bound together by our frustration at the District Line and an urban sense of superiority? Actually, the sense of superiority is very nuanced: we ascribe to ourselves the virtues of cosmopolitanism without any of the self-centeredness that afflicts New Yorkers. Truly, we would be the Goldilocks nation.

社會(huì)學(xué)家本尼迪克特•安德森(Benedict Anderson)把民族形容為“臆想的社區(qū)”。對(duì)District Line地鐵線的挫敗感和城市優(yōu)越感，把倫敦人凝聚在一起，除此之外還能怎么定義倫敦人呢?事實(shí)上，這種優(yōu)越感非常細(xì)膩：我們自認(rèn)為具有世界主義的美德，但沒有紐約人流露出的那種自我中心主義。我們會(huì)成為真正恰到好處的民族國家。

What about the practicalities? An independent London would stay in the EU. We would seek a deep and special partnership with the rest of the UK. We would take back control of our laws, money and borders. Our flag would be the Tube map. Our border would be the M25 motorway. Relax — it would be as frictionless as possible. An even more global London. The love child of medieval Venice and today’s Hong Kong.

實(shí)際如何操作?獨(dú)立的倫敦將留在歐盟內(nèi)。我們會(huì)尋求與英國其他地區(qū)建立深層而特殊的合作伙伴關(guān)系。我們將收回對(duì)法律、財(cái)政和邊境的控制權(quán)。我們的國旗將是倫敦地鐵圖。M25高速公路將成為我們的邊境線。放心，一切將盡可能做到無摩擦。一個(gè)更具全球色彩的倫敦。它將是中世紀(jì)威尼斯和今日香港的完美結(jié)晶。

I know what you’re going to say: there might be an economic cost. Indeed there might. But look at the upside. House prices might fall. You might get a seat on the 113 bus, or a centre court ticket at Wimbledon.

我知道你會(huì)說什么：獨(dú)立可能會(huì)帶來經(jīng)濟(jì)代價(jià)。確實(shí)可能。但先看看獨(dú)立帶來的好處吧。房?jī)r(jià)可能下跌。你或許能在113路公交車上找到空座，沒準(zhǔn)還能買到溫網(wǎng)(Wimbledon)中心球場(chǎng)的門票。

London’s dominance is a mixed blessing. We have been clogged up by the headquarters of national power — the ministries, the monarchy, the BBC. Better to turn Westminster, Buckingham Palace and Oxford Circus over to the tourists, who have pretty much taken control of them anyway.

倫敦的主導(dǎo)地位有利有弊。迄今國家權(quán)力總部——政府各部、皇室以及英國廣播公司(BBC)——妨礙了我們的運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)。最好把威斯敏斯特(Westminster)、白金漢宮(Buckingham Palace)和牛津圓場(chǎng)(Oxford Circus)全部交給游客，反正他們差不多已經(jīng)控制了這些地方。

A London enclave could do us all a favour. It would regenerate the rest of the UK. Plus Britain would no longer be an island nation — adieu to the isolationist psyche. We Londoners would lose our stake in the England football team winning the World Cup, but most of us lost that a while back.

倫敦變成一塊飛地，對(duì)各方都有益處。它將使英國其他地區(qū)重新煥發(fā)生機(jī)。此外，英國將不再是島國，從而告別孤立主義心態(tài)。倫敦人將失去參與英格蘭足球隊(duì)贏得世界杯(World Cup)的機(jī)會(huì)，但我們大多數(shù)人早就對(duì)英格蘭隊(duì)不抱希望。

Immigration inevitably would be a thorny topic. Of course we would, to quote Brexit secretary David Davis, make a generous offer. Our starting point is that anyone with an Oyster public transport card would be allowed unlimited right to remain. What happens if you lose your Oyster? Would we really allow free movement to those from Hungary but not from Hull? These are details the Department for Exiting the UK would have no problem sorting out. Presumably.

移民問題難免會(huì)成為一個(gè)棘手的話題。當(dāng)然，用退歐事務(wù)大臣戴維•戴維斯(David Davis)的話來說，我們會(huì)提出慷慨的方案。我們的出發(fā)點(diǎn)是，任何擁有倫敦公共交通牡蠣卡(Oyster)的人，都可以無限制地享受居留權(quán)。如果你的牡蠣卡丟了怎么辦?我們真的會(huì)允許匈牙利人自由流動(dòng)，而不允許英格蘭北方的赫爾人來倫敦嗎?這些是“退英部”(Department for Exiting the UK)肯定可以解決的細(xì)節(jié)。想必是的。

We would need a national anthem. Which is tricky given that The Beatles were from Liverpool, and nearly everyone else on the Wikipedia page for best British bands seems to have come from Manchester. There was a suggestion that we could try something whimsical by Flanders and Swann, but it turns out they were born in Wales. Again, this is something the Department would need to look at.

我們需要定一首國歌。鑒于披頭士樂隊(duì)(The Beatles)來自利物浦、而維基百科(Wikipedia)英國最出色樂隊(duì)的頁面上其他幾乎所有樂隊(duì)似乎都來自曼徹斯特，這個(gè)問題比較棘手。有人建議，我們可以嘗試一下弗蘭德斯與斯旺組合(Flanders and Swann)的滑稽曲風(fēng)，但是他們出生在威爾士。這又成了“退英部”需要考慮的問題。

These uncertainties might damage the prospect of the London Leave campaign, so we would need a popular figurehead to win the case for independence. A person of flexible views. Who knows London, but also knows Leaving. Former mayor Boris Johnson, if you’re reading this, please phone the office. And delete any previous article you’ve written opposing an independent London.

這些不確定性可能會(huì)破壞倫敦退英運(yùn)動(dòng)的前景，因此我們需要一個(gè)受歡迎的標(biāo)志人物來爭(zhēng)取獨(dú)立。此人需要具有靈活的觀點(diǎn)。了解倫敦，也善于退出。前市長(zhǎng)鮑里斯•約翰遜(Boris Johnson)，如果你在看這篇文章，請(qǐng)致電退英辦公室。同時(shí)刪除你之前撰寫的反對(duì)倫敦獨(dú)立的任何文章。

And yet something doesn’t quite convince. For one thing, where will it end? Already, UK Independence party councillors in Havering have tried unsuccessfully to separate their borough from the Greater London Authority. Who could stop a similar separatist movement in Hampstead or Dulwich? The literati would plot in the London Review of Books, and no one else would find out until it was too late.

不過有些事情不太令人信服。首先，這一切的終點(diǎn)在哪?英國獨(dú)立黨(UKIP)的黑弗靈(Havering)議員已經(jīng)嘗試了讓該區(qū)脫離大倫敦市政府(Greater London Authority)，結(jié)果沒有成果。誰能阻止?jié)h普斯特德(Hampstead)或達(dá)利奇(Dulwich)發(fā)起類似的分裂運(yùn)動(dòng)呢?文人會(huì)在《倫敦書評(píng)》(London Review of Books)中密謀此事，等到其他人發(fā)現(xiàn)就為時(shí)已晚了。

Then there’s the risk our city-state might get a bit insular: how many Chelsea-Arsenal derbies do we want to watch? Crucially, there’s the time commitment. Independence is a diary killer. Londoners like to think of themselves as cosmopolitan, but their primary identity is just being busy. You can hardly have a conversation without contractually agreeing to watch a whole new box set. I’m not sure we have the time for revolution. We have a dream, but we also have a full schedule.

還有就是倫敦這個(gè)城市國家可能會(huì)有與世隔絕的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)：我們想看多少場(chǎng)切爾西(Chelsea)與阿森納(Arsenal)這兩個(gè)倫敦足球隊(duì)之間的比賽?關(guān)鍵是，還有一個(gè)時(shí)間投入的問題。獨(dú)立是需要全力以赴的。倫敦人喜歡把自己看成世界主義者，但他們的主要身份認(rèn)同只是忙碌。你幾乎找不到人說話——除非你承擔(dān)起觀看一部新的影視劇集的合同義務(wù)。我不確定我們有時(shí)間搞一場(chǎng)革命。我們有一個(gè)夢(mèng)想，但我們的時(shí)間表太滿了。