四個(gè)流動(dòng)自由是歐盟精髓
歐盟的根本特征是什么?在我們開始討論有關(guān)其未來的任何方案之前，我們得先搞清這個(gè)問題。
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.”
就我個(gè)人而言，1957年為建立歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)共同體(European Economic Community)而簽署的《羅馬條約》(Treaty of Rome)結(jié)論性地回答了這一問題?！稐l約》第三條寫道：“歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)共同體的活動(dòng)應(yīng)包括……消除成員國之間關(guān)稅和商品進(jìn)出口量的限制……廢除成員國之間人員、服務(wù)和資本自由流動(dòng)的障礙。”
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.
換句話說，歐盟的精髓是四個(gè)自由：商品、服務(wù)、資本和人員的流動(dòng)自由。這四個(gè)自由之于歐盟，一如高爾夫球之于高爾夫俱樂部。你可以打高爾夫球，看別人打高爾夫球，談?wù)摳郀柗蚯?，或者是在?huì)所酒吧跟我喝一杯，但你不能把一家高爾夫俱樂部變成一個(gè)賓果游戲廳——除非其他所有人都同意你的提議。
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.
《羅馬條約》簽訂時(shí)，第一個(gè)自由——有關(guān)商品的——顯然是首要事項(xiàng)。后續(xù)的歐盟條約加強(qiáng)了其他自由;這些自由發(fā)展得并不均衡。商品流動(dòng)自由是最發(fā)達(dá)的，不過部分軍品仍受限制;服務(wù)流動(dòng)自由是這四個(gè)里最不發(fā)達(dá)的。公民流動(dòng)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.
英國首相特里薩•梅(Theresa May)臭名遠(yuǎn)揚(yáng)地抨擊“世界公民”，透徹揭示了英國退歐的心態(tài)，因?yàn)樵跉W盟，無論你生活在哪里，你永遠(yuǎn)是你的祖國和歐盟的公民。這是歐洲性的精髓。
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.
這四個(gè)自由合一的背后有一個(gè)政治邏輯和一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)邏輯。它們構(gòu)成了歐盟政治中的終極取舍。歐盟的強(qiáng)項(xiàng)在于調(diào)解各種相互沖突的利益，包括大國與小國之間，生產(chǎn)者與消費(fèi)者之間，雇主與雇員之間。雖然昔日的歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)共同體的根基(顧名思義)是經(jīng)濟(jì)的，但它還需要一個(gè)政治和社會(huì)組成部分才能走下去。歐盟作為一個(gè)生產(chǎn)者俱樂部是無法久存的。遷徙自由讓勞動(dòng)者能夠去歐盟其他地方提高自己的收入。它還起到較小的穩(wěn)定宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)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.
最近我讀了兩份經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào)告，這些報(bào)告認(rèn)為遷徙自由嚴(yán)格說來并不是單一市場的要求。但至少二者間聯(lián)系的背后存在著一個(gè)有說服力的邏輯。人們可以將這四種自由分為兩類：經(jīng)濟(jì)產(chǎn)出類(商品和服務(wù))，以及經(jīng)濟(jì)投入類(勞動(dòng)力和資本)。我們可以限制其中一個(gè)而放開其他嗎?當(dāng)然可以。既然商品和服務(wù)至今都沒得到同等對待，資本和勞動(dòng)力又憑什么非要得到同等對待?但四大自由的邏輯并不是基于經(jīng)濟(jì)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.
對四大自由的無法理解(或者拒絕接受)構(gòu)成了英國退歐背后的深層原因。戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)出名地在這件事上作出誤判。這位前首相試圖讓歐盟同意放寬自由流動(dòng)的原則，結(jié)果失敗了。直到今天，這場辯論的雙方都仍有人認(rèn)為，英國可以在限制自由流動(dòng)的同時(shí)，依然是單一市場的一員。
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?xì)W盟各種版本的未來，我的建議是從卡梅倫的錯(cuò)誤中汲取教訓(xùn)。一個(gè)“可變幾何”的歐洲當(dāng)然是可能的，的確是可取的，但它不會(huì)讓成員國在四個(gè)自由中挑挑揀揀。不是每個(gè)成員國都會(huì)加入歐元區(qū)或申根護(hù)照自由旅行區(qū)。歐盟委員會(huì)(European Commission)主席讓-克洛德•容克(Jean-Claude Juncker)在9月份的年度“盟情咨文”講話中所勾勒的以歐洲為中心的愿景過于靜止了。歐洲并不是所有人都想要同等程度的集中化。但所有成員國都需要接受這四大自由，未來加入歐盟的任何一個(gè)國家，或是離開之后又重新加入的國家也一樣。這些自由是捆綁在一起的。
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.
正是由于它們的不可分割性，我比其他人更懷疑歐盟—英國之間的新型聯(lián)系協(xié)議，該協(xié)議將允許英國與歐盟重新建立聯(lián)系。這樣的協(xié)議與英國正在告別的成員國資格看起來沒有多大區(qū)別。如果你現(xiàn)在受不了遷徙自由，那么你也會(huì)受不了未來的聯(lián)系協(xié)議，因?yàn)檫@四大自由將永遠(yuǎn)構(gòu)成歐盟越來越多的同心圓的交集。
As the first chapters of the Treaty of Rome remind us, they always have.
正如《羅馬條約》開篇提醒我們的那樣，這些自由一直享有這樣的地位。
