“BRITAIN does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community,” asserted Margaret Thatcher in 1988. Now, increasingly, it does. Opinion polls show that most Britons are in favour of leaving the European Union. Baroness Thatcher’s Conservative Party, which took Britain into Europe four decades ago, is divided between those who long for an arm’s-length relationship and those who want to walk out. The second camp is swelling.
Even the fiercest British critics of the EU are astonished by the speed at which things are moving. Parliamentary rebellions over Europe are becoming easier and easier to organise. Euroscepticism is hardening in the Conservative Party, in much the same way as social conservatism has gone from being a powerful current in America’s Republican Party to an intolerant orthodoxy. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which wants to leave the EU, has abruptly moved from the political margins to the mainstream. A referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU now seems a matter of timing.
Continental Europeans are surprised too—and annoyed. They are bewildered that the British should be talking of leaving a club that many believe has shifted decisively in a free-trading, Anglo-Saxon direction in the past two decades. They also resent the way Britain seems to be using the threat of an exit as a bargaining tool, especially at a time when the euro is in crisis. As they see it, Britain wants to carve out a privileged place for itself in the European club, where it can enjoy free trade without any of the other membership rules. In Berlin and Rome, political leaders argue that Britain needs to make up its mind once and for all: does it want to be in or out?
Oops!
For an economically liberal newspaper that has been sceptical of much that Brussels does, a British exit would be a double tragedy. Britons would suffer far more than they currently realise, as we explain in detail in our briefing this week. Europe would be damaged too. Britain has stood for free trade and low regulation, so without it the union would be more lethargic and left ever further behind by America and the emerging world.
The speediest way for Britain to tumble out would be an “In or Out” referendum called by a prime minister frightened by rising anti-Europe feeling in Parliament and the country as a whole. David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, has tried to resist this, hinting instead that Britons would be given a choice between the status quo and a more detached relationship. But few are satisfied with that. Conservative MPs look over their right shoulders at UKIP and clamour for a sharper choice.
Another route out involves a diplomatic slip. The cleverer Eurosceptics, including Mr Cameron, do not want Britain to leave; they just want to bring back some powers from Brussels. But their efforts to do so are making things worse. Last year almost all other EU members lined up against Mr Cameron, who was trying to block a fiscal compact to help resolve the euro crisis. The British now hope that tightening euro-zone integration provides a chance for Mr Cameron to negotiate looser ties. They could be wrong. Other countries are tiring of British demands. Many, including Germany, would prefer to avoid a British exit, but they are not so desperate to keep Mr Cameron in that they are prepared to concede much in the way of social and labour-market regulation. And some, such as France, might positively welcome the departure of the club’s most awkward member. Bad-tempered negotiations would increase the likelihood of an “out” vote in a British referendum.
Little sovereignty, large cost
And what if Britain left? It could grab a few benefits quickly. The nation would save about £8 billion ($13 billion) a year in net budget contributions. Freed of the common agricultural policy, its food could become cheaper. If it pulled out of the single market, it could do away with annoying labour directives. The City would not have to worry so much about a financial-transaction tax and creeping European finance rules.
Yet these gains would be greatly outweighed by the costs of a British exit, which would dent trade with a market that accounts for half of Britain’s exports. The carmakers that use Britain as their European operations base would gradually drift away, along with large parts of the financial-services industry. Britain would have to renegotiate dozens of bilateral trade deals from a much weaker position than it enjoyed as a member of the EU. It would cut a greatly diminished figure on the world stage. It would have bought some sovereignty, but at an extraordinary cost to Britain—and its partners.
Among those who want out, there is talk of finding an accommodation by which Britain would leave the EU but still trade freely with it (the equivalent of eating in a restaurant but not paying the cover charge). Some Eurosceptics suggest Britain could join Norway in the European Economic Area. That would leave it bound by EU regulations that it would be almost powerless to shape—a situation many Britons, especially Eurosceptics, would find intolerable. Others hope Britain might get the same deal as Switzerland, which is a little further removed but gets good access to the single market. It wouldn’t: the EU already regrets giving Switzerland the Swiss option, so it is scarcely likely to give bigger, more troublesome Britain the same deal. Again, disappointment and a referendum beckon.
Can anything be done to prevent this slow-motion disaster? Quite possibly, it can. Oddly, Mr Cameron should try emulating Baroness Thatcher. She is remembered today as a handbag-swinger who commanded Brussels to retreat, but she also knew how to make common cause with other European leaders. Unfortunately, the quality of British EU diplomacy has deteriorated in recent years. Obsessed with repatriating powers and with appearing tough to their domestic audience, Britain’s current leaders seem to have forgotten the art of dealmaking. Mr Cameron has a good case to make, especially when he argues for extending the single market to promote growth. He also has powerful sympathisers in Europe, including Germany’s Angela Merkel, but they seldom become useful allies because Britain is seen as a blackmailing zealot.
The other priority should be educating Britons about what exactly a British exit would really involve. Big business and the City, whose interests lie solidly inside the EU, need to take a stand. The Labour Party, which has been playing a cynical and dangerous game, also needs to change its line. In October Labour MPs voted with anti-European Tories over the EU budget, handing the government its first major defeat. By strengthening those who want to leave Europe, Labour is making it more likely that a Conservative government will have to promise an in-or-out referendum. If it does, Labour may be bounced into promising the same.
Most of the heavy lifting, at home as well as in Brussels, will have to be done by Mr Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne. They need to remind Britons of the victories that have been won within the EU and of the dangers of falling out of it. And above all, they need to rediscover the virtues of muddling along and keeping options open. The referendum is a good example. Rushing to hold a simple in-or-out vote sounds clear and decisive. But stalling for time is wiser. The government should resist demands for a vote at least until it becomes clear what sort of Europe Britain would be voting to remain in or leave. This sort of wait-and-see approach may feel unsatisfactory, but it is what kept Britain out of the euro.
Britain’s position in Europe may become untenable, if the resolution of the economic crisis binds the countries of the euro zone ever closer and all other EU countries join. But that is not a certainty, and nor is Britain’s steady marginalisation. Difficult and often humiliating as it may be, the best course is to stick close to Europe, and try to bend it towards Britain.
“BRITAIN does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community,” asserted Margaret Thatcher in 1988. Now, increasingly, it does. Opinion polls show that most Britons are in favour of leaving the European Union. Baroness Thatcher’s Conservative Party, which took Britain into Europe four decades ago, is divided between those who long for an arm’s-length relationship and those who want to walk out. The second camp is swelling.
“英国并不梦想脱离欧洲，成为一个舒适却孤立的社区。” 玛格丽特·撒切尔夫人1988年时宣称。但是现在，这却逐步的成为现实。民意调查显示大多数英国人偏向于脱离欧盟。撒切尔夫人带领的保守党，40多年前将英国领进欧盟，现在正分裂成两派，一部分希望保持距离但维护关系，另一部分则希望脱离欧盟。而后者的阵营正在壮大。
European Community，原文是全大写的，所以是专有名词，指“欧共体”（欧盟前身）；assert有“断言、坚决主张”的意思，翻译为“宣称”力度减弱了；“这却逐步成为现实”意思模糊，原文的does是针对之前的dose not来说的，意思很明确，可翻译为“却日益脱离欧洲/走向当年的反面”；in favor of是“赞成”而不是“偏向于”；Baronness没有翻译出来，这里的Baronness Thatcher’s Conservative Party是一起的，用来表示“那个时代”的意思，所以应当翻译为“女爵士”；40年前，英国加入的是欧共体而不是欧盟；“撒切尔夫人带领的保守党，40多年前将英国领进欧盟，现在正分裂成两派”不符合中文习惯，且时态不对，可改为“撒切尔女爵的保守党曾在40年前率领英国加入欧共体，如今已分裂成两派”；之前说“分裂为两派”，之后就应当说“一派如何，另一派如何”；an arm’s-length relationship一般翻译为“‘正常’关系”或者“有限度的亲密关系”，这里也可翻译为“不要过于紧密”。
Even the fiercest British critics of the EU are astonished by the speed at which things are moving. Parliamentary rebellions over Europe are becoming easier and easier to organise. Euroscepticism is hardening in the Conservative Party, in much the same way as social conservatism has gone from being a powerful current in America’s Republican Party to an intolerant orthodoxy. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which wants to leave the EU, has abruptly moved from the political margins to the mainstream. A referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU now seems a matter of timing.
即使是英国最激烈的欧盟批评家也惊叹于事情发展的速度。反欧盟的议会越来越容易组织。保守党中的欧洲怀疑主义正在变强，正如美国共和党中的社会保守主义从主要力量到令人难以忍受的正统主义。想要脱离欧盟的英国独立党，突然从政治边缘走向主流。英国去留欧盟的公投，现在看来只是时间问题。
Parliamentary rebellion不是“反欧盟的议会”，而是“议会里的欧盟反对派/反对活动”；“正如美国共和党中的社会保守主义从主要力量到令人难以忍受的正统主义”太长，而且结构弄错了，in much the same way as可翻译为“这情形正好像/正如”，下面的意思是“社会保守派不再是美国共和党中的强大势力，而成了不容反对的正统”，intolerant不是“难以忍受”，而是“不容许反驳、不宽容”；“英国独立党”作为专有名词，应当括号注释出原文；wants翻译为“主张”更好；abruptly翻译为“忽然/出人意料”比“突然”要好；“走向主流”不如“成为主流”；a matter of timing翻译为“是迟早的事”比“只是时间问题”更地道些。
Continental Europeans are surprised too—and annoyed. They are bewildered that the British should be talking of leaving a club that many believe has shifted decisively in a free-trading, Anglo-Saxon direction in the past two decades. They also resent the way Britain seems to be using the threat of an exit as a bargaining tool, especially at a time when the euro is in crisis. As they see it, Britain wants to carve out a privileged place for itself in the European club, where it can enjoy free trade without any of the other membership rules. In Berlin and Rome, political leaders argue that Britain needs to make up its mind once and for all: does it want to be in or out?
欧洲大陆也感到惊讶——并且烦恼。他们都感到很困惑，英国应该在二十年前，很多人毅然转移自由贸易，盎格鲁 – 撒克逊的方向的时候谈论离开俱乐部。他们也憎恨英国似乎把威胁退出作为讨价还价的工具，尤其是在欧元处于危机之中时。在他们看来，英国想在欧洲俱乐部为自己开拓出一个特殊的位置，在那里可以享受自由贸易却不用遵守任何其他的会员规则。在柏林和罗马，政治领导人认为，英国需要立刻下定决心，一劳永逸：去还是留？
annoyed不是“烦恼”，是“恼火”；第二句的意思完全弄错了，原文的意思是“过去20年里，欧盟的许多国家已经坚定地转向了盎格鲁-撒克逊式的自由贸易，英国现在竟然在讨论是否应当离开这个群体，欧陆各国对此十分困惑”；euro翻译为“欧元”是准确的；“开拓”与“位置”搭配不当，可改为“谋得”或“打造”；once and for all没有“立刻”的意思，直接翻译为“彻底”即可。
Oops! 啊哦！
For an economically liberal newspaper that has been sceptical of much that Brussels does, a British exit would be a double tragedy. Britons would suffer far more than they currently realise, as we explain in detail in our briefing this week. Europe would be damaged too. Britain has stood for free trade and low regulation, so without it the union would be more lethargic and left ever further behind by America and the emerging world.
对布鲁塞尔的所作所为一直持怀疑态度的经济自由派报纸表示，英国的退出将是一个双重悲剧。英国人的遭遇将坏到远非他们现在所能想象，具体情况我们将在这周的简报作出解释。欧洲也将受损。英国一直主张自由贸易，少量监管，所以缺少了它的联盟将更加了无生气，越来越落后于美国和新兴世界。
第一句翻译错了，没看出来newspaper指的就是这本杂志（后面说的our briefing this week可佐证），另外应当注明布鲁塞尔所在的比利时是这段时间的欧盟轮值主席国；a double tragedy的a不应翻译，直接说“双重悲剧”即可；the economist的briefing栏目翻译为什么名字，应当遵从习俗，如果没有专门的翻译，可参考现有杂志对应栏目的名字：“动态”、“快报”、“简报”，或保留原名不翻译也可；“欧洲也将受损”不通顺；low regulation翻译为“少量监管”搭配不当，可改为“宽松监管”；“联盟将更加了无生气”的搭配不当，可改为“联盟的活力更匮乏/低落”，left even further behind不是“越来越落后”，而是“越发落后”。
The speediest way for Britain to tumble out would be an “In or Out” referendum called by a prime minister frightened by rising anti-Europe feeling in Parliament and the country as a whole. David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, has tried to resist this, hinting instead that Britons would be given a choice between the status quo and a more detached relationship. But few are satisfied with that. Conservative MPs look over their right shoulders at UKIP and clamour for a sharper choice.
英国退出的最快方式将是举行由首相号召的“去留”公投。英国首相戴维·卡梅伦，对议会及全国范围内越来越高涨的反欧盟情绪感到害怕。他试图抵抗，暗示与其反欧盟，英国可以在现状和更超脱的关系中做一个选择。但几乎没人感到满意。保守党议员担心独立党，叫嚷着需要一个更清晰的选择。
第一句是个长句，翻译时应切断，它有几个部分，应当妥善组织：“公民和议员共同的反欧盟情绪高涨”，“这种情绪吓到首相”，“首相发起公投”，“这是英国脱离欧盟最快的办法”；之前只是做逻辑的分析，到第二句才说到现任首相卡梅伦，这类句子不能直接按英文结构翻译，可改为“曾试图抵抗这种情绪的英国首相卡梅伦暗示，”；instead不是“与其反抗”，而是“还有其他主张”的意思；detached翻译为“超脱”不如“松散”或“孤立”，因为”超脱“意指“置身事外（公平、公正）”；最后一句完全翻译错了，look over their right shoulders at UKIP中，look over不是固定搭配，over是与shoulders搭配的，意思是“保守党议员看着更右倾的UKIP”。
Another route out involves a diplomatic slip. The cleverer Eurosceptics, including Mr Cameron, do not want Britain to leave; they just want to bring back some powers from Brussels. But their efforts to do so are making things worse. Last year almost all other EU members lined up against Mr Cameron, who was trying to block a fiscal compact to help resolve the euro crisis. The British now hope that tightening euro-zone integration provides a chance for Mr Cameron to negotiate looser ties. They could be wrong. Other countries are tiring of British demands. Many, including Germany, would prefer to avoid a British exit, but they are not so desperate to keep Mr Cameron in that they are prepared to concede much in the way of social and labour-market regulation. And some, such as France, might positively welcome the departure of the club’s most awkward member. Bad-tempered negotiations would increase the likelihood of an “out” vote in a British referendum.
另一条出路则涉及到外交。聪明的欧洲怀疑论者，包括卡梅伦先生，都不希望英国退出，他们只是想从布鲁塞尔讨回更多的权力。但他们越这么努力，事情却变得越糟糕。去年，几乎所有其他欧盟成员都一致反对卡梅伦，尽管他竭力阻止财政紧凑以帮助解决欧元危机。英国现在希望欧元区整合的收紧能够给卡梅伦提供一个松绑谈判的机会。他们可能错了。其他国家已经对英国的要求感到厌倦。包括德国在内的许多国家都不希望英国退出，但他们也没有绝望到在社会和劳动力市场的监管方式上让步以留住卡梅伦先生。而另一些国家，比如法国，则会很高兴俱乐部中最麻烦的成员离开。愤怒的谈判更增加了英国全民公投“去”的可能性。
第一句的slip没翻译出来，这里的slip意思明显是the act or an instance of departing secretly，也就是“偷偷离开”；cleverer应翻译为“更聪明的”，直接翻译为“聪明”显得其他人都“不聪明”，有误；Eurosceptics开头大写，是专有名词，国内有翻译为”欧元怀疑派“的，如果不确认通行译法，需要在译文后用括号注明原文；“聪明的欧洲怀疑论者，包括卡梅伦先生，都不希望英国退出”不符合中文习惯，可改为“包括卡梅伦先生在内的更聪明的欧元怀疑论派都不希望英国退出”；bring back翻译为“讨回”色彩不对，可改为“拿回”；But their efforts to do so are making things worse没有“越…越…”的意思；去年其他欧盟成员反对卡梅伦的原因是who was trying to block a fiscal compact to help resolve the euro crisis，也就是卡梅伦阻止一项旨在解决欧元危机的财政协约，这里把原文的意思彻底弄反了；“欧元区整合的收紧”中“收紧”意思不明，可能是抬高门槛也可能是紧密联系，应当用“欧元区的加强整合”；并不存在“松绑谈判”，原文的意思是“就更松散的关系协商”；“他们可能错了”不如“他们大概弄错了”；“他们也没有绝望到在社会和劳动力市场的监管方式上让步以留住卡梅伦先生”，这里看出了原文的so…that…结构，但desperate翻译错了，不是“绝望”而是“拼命”，所以可改为“他们也不愿赌上社会和劳动力市场监管方式的让步，以留住卡梅伦先生”；bad-tempered翻译为“愤怒的”不对，应该翻译为“在这种糟糕情绪下的”更好。
Little sovereignty, large cost 小主权，大成本
And what if Britain left? It could grab a few benefits quickly. The nation would save about £8 billion ($13 billion) a year in net budget contributions. Freed of the common agricultural policy, its food could become cheaper. If it pulled out of the single market, it could do away with annoying labour directives. The City would not have to worry so much about a financial-transaction tax and creeping European finance rules.
那么如果英国退出了欧盟呢？有几个好处迅速可以体现。英国每年可以节省大约8亿英镑（13亿美元）贡献给欧盟的净预算。脱离了共同农业政策，食物也会更便宜。退出了单一市场，就不用烦恼欧盟对劳动力的监管。金融城也不用担心太多金融交易税和逐渐上升欧洲财务规则。
8 billion单位弄错了，是80亿英镑，130亿美元；do away with是固定搭配，意思是“干掉/杀死”，所以不是“不用烦劳欧盟对劳动力的监管”，而是“再没有烦人/麻烦的劳动法规”；worry so much about中的much是用来修饰“担心”的，而不是“金融交易税”的，creeping也翻译错了，真正的意思是“进展缓慢”而不是“逐渐上升”。
Yet these gains would be greatly outweighed by the costs of a British exit, which would dent trade with a market that accounts for half of Britain’s exports. The carmakers that use Britain as their European operations base would gradually drift away, along with large parts of the financial-services industry. Britain would have to renegotiate dozens of bilateral trade deals from a much weaker position than it enjoyed as a member of the EU. It would cut a greatly diminished figure on the world stage. It would have bought some sovereignty, but at an extraordinary cost to Britain—and its partners.
然而，英国退出的成本将大大超过这些收益，出口贸易市场的一半将被削弱。把英国作为其欧洲业务基地的汽车制造商将逐渐撤离，大部分的金融服务行业也会随之撤离。英国将不得不以比欧盟成员弱得多的地位，重新进行几十个双边贸易谈判。英国在世界舞台上的影响也将急剧下降。退出也许能带来一些主权，但是英国——甚至欧盟都会付出惨重的代价。
“出口贸易市场的一半将被削弱”翻译错了，原文的意思有两个：“欧盟这个市场占据了英国出口的一半”，“英国退出给予这个市场的生意沉重一击”；“把英国作为其欧洲业务基地”累赘，可改为“以英国为欧洲业务基地”；“英国将不得不以比欧盟成员弱得多的地位”理解起来比较绕，可改为“失去了欧盟成员国身份，英国不得不以弱势得多的地位”；“急剧”的意思是“快而剧烈”，同时强调速度和程度，但原文只提到了程度，所以应该是“大为降低”；“带来一些主权”不如“拿回/获得部分主权”；partner不是“欧盟”，是“伙伴”。
Among those who want out, there is talk of finding an accommodation by which Britain would leave the EU but still trade freely with it (the equivalent of eating in a restaurant but not paying the cover charge). Some Eurosceptics suggest Britain could join Norway in the European Economic Area. That would leave it bound by EU regulations that it would be almost powerless to shape—a situation many Britons, especially Eurosceptics, would find intolerable. Others hope Britain might get the same deal as Switzerland, which is a little further removed but gets good access to the single market. It wouldn’t: the EU already regrets giving Switzerland the Swiss option, so it is scarcely likely to give bigger, more troublesome Britain the same deal. Again, disappointment and a referendum beckon.
那些要退出的人中，有人说英国可以在离开欧盟的同时保持与其自由贸易（相当于在餐馆吃饭却不付钱）。某些欧洲怀疑论者建议英国可以像挪威一样加入欧洲经济区。这样一来，英国就不能影响欧盟的法规而必须受欧盟约束了——这种情形，大多数英国人，尤其是欧洲怀疑论者都无法忍受。其他人则希望英国得到跟瑞士一样的待遇，虽然跟欧盟离得远，但还是在欧盟市场。但欧盟已经后悔给瑞士特权，所以几乎不可能给更大，更麻烦的英国同样的待遇。说来说去都是失望，只能全民公投了。
“英国就不能影响欧盟的法规而必须受欧盟约束了”这句话比较绕，原文的重点也不突出，可改为“英国就只有受欧盟法规约束的份，而没有参与制定的份了”；瑞士并不是“还在欧盟市场”，而是“与单一市场的交流相当方便”。
Can anything be done to prevent this slow-motion disaster? Quite possibly, it can. Oddly, Mr Cameron should try emulating Baroness Thatcher. She is remembered today as a handbag-swinger who commanded Brussels to retreat, but she also knew how to make common cause with other European leaders. Unfortunately, the quality of British EU diplomacy has deteriorated in recent years. Obsessed with repatriating powers and with appearing tough to their domestic audience, Britain’s current leaders seem to have forgotten the art of dealmaking. Mr Cameron has a good case to make, especially when he argues for extending the single market to promote growth. He also has powerful sympathisers in Europe, including Germany’s Angela Merkel, but they seldom become useful allies because Britain is seen as a blackmailing zealot.
有没有什么措施能阻止这种慢动作的灾难？有的，很可能有。说来也怪，卡梅伦先生应该效仿撒切尔夫人。人们仍然记得她“铁娘子”的风范，命令布鲁塞尔撤退，但她也知道如何与其他欧洲国家领导人合作。不幸的是，近年来英国欧盟外交的质量越来越恶化。英国现在的领导人痴迷于遣返权力和以强势的姿态出现在国民面前，他好像忘了交易谈判的艺术。卡梅伦也不是没有道理 尤其是在他支持扩展单一市场以促进增长时。他也强烈的同情欧洲，包括德国总理默克尔，但他们成不了强力的盟友，因为英国被看作是一个勒索狂。
“慢动作的灾难”不容易理解，可改为“缓慢发生的灾难”；Oddly的意思不是“说来也怪”，而是“相反”（因为撒切尔夫人给人印象都是强硬派，而上文说应当和欧盟搞好关系，所以这里给出“学习撒切尔夫人”的建议显得很奇怪），所以不妨改为“出乎大家意料”或者“反其道而行之”；handbag-swinger的意思是“挥舞手提包的人”，而不是“铁娘子”；commanded翻译为“命令”不及“喝令”；“英国欧盟外交的质量”翻译不对，应当是“英国对欧盟外交的质量”；“越来越恶化”应该较为“日益恶化”或者“越来越差”才通顺；“遣返权力”不对，应该是“拿会权力”；“交易谈判的艺术”累赘，直接说“谈判的艺术”即可；Mr Cameron has a good case to make的意思是“他可以大有作为”，而不是“卡梅伦也不是没有道理”；卡梅伦是“被欧洲同情”而不是“同情欧洲”。
The other priority should be educating Britons about what exactly a British exit would really involve. Big business and the City, whose interests lie solidly inside the EU, need to take a stand. The Labour Party, which has been playing a cynical and dangerous game, also needs to change its line. In October Labour MPs voted with anti-European Tories over the EU budget, handing the government its first major defeat. By strengthening those who want to leave Europe, Labour is making it more likely that a Conservative government will have to promise an in-or-out referendum. If it does, Labour may be bounced into promising the same.
还有一个可以优先考虑的措施就是告诉英国人，英国退出欧盟究竟意味着什么。利益依赖欧盟的大企业和金融城必须选择立场。一直愤世嫉俗，玩着危险游戏的工党，也必须改变他们的路线。十月份，工党议员和反欧盟的保守党托利派投票反对欧盟预算，成功的击败了政府。工党通过加强退出欧盟的力量来使保守党政府承诺去留公投。如果真这样，工党也将不得不做出相同的承诺。
“还有一个可以优先考虑的措施”翻译错了，应当是“另一点当务之急/要紧的事”；“利益依赖欧盟”把solid漏掉了；“take a stand”不是“选择立场”而是“表明立场”；“也必须改变他们的路线”累赘，可改为“也必须改变路线”；用“成功的击败了政府”翻译handing the government its first major defeat，主被动关系弄错了，应改为“给了政府第一次重大挫折”；“工党通过加强退出欧盟的力量”不像中文，应改为“工党为退出欧盟的力量助阵/捧场”；最后那句完全翻译错了，be bounced into意思是“匆忙同意某决定”，所以应该是“工党可能要争分夺秒去赞同”。
Most of the heavy lifting, at home as well as in Brussels, will have to be done by Mr Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne. They need to remind Britons of the victories that have been won within the EU and of the dangers of falling out of it. And above all, they need to rediscover the virtues of muddling along and keeping options open. The referendum is a good example. Rushing to hold a simple in-or-out vote sounds clear and decisive. But stalling for time is wiser. The government should resist demands for a vote at least until it becomes clear what sort of Europe Britain would be voting to remain in or leave. This sort of wait-and-see approach may feel unsatisfactory, but it is what kept Britain out of the euro.
不管在英国还是在布鲁塞尔，卡梅伦和他的大臣乔治·奥斯本都还有很多繁重的工作要做。他们必须提醒英国人他们在欧盟赢得的胜利和退出欧盟的危险。最重要的是，他们需要重新发现等待的好处，保持选项开放。全民公投就是个好例子。急于举行简单的去留公投听起来明确而果断。但拖延时间显然更明智。政府应该抵制投票的请求，至少应该等到事情更明朗，明确英国到底会投票去还是留。这种等待和观望的态度也许令人不满意，但至少能阻止英国退出欧元区。
“不管在英国还是在布鲁塞尔，卡梅伦和他的大臣乔治·奥斯本都还有很多繁重的工作要做”翻译错了，在英国和布鲁塞尔的是“繁重的工作”，而不是“卡梅伦和他的大臣乔治·奥斯本”，而且这里应当注明奥斯本是“财政大臣”；“在欧盟赢得的胜利”改为“在欧盟已经取得的胜利”更准确；muddling along的意思是“得过且过”，不是简单的“等待”，可翻译为“敷衍塞责”或“虚与委蛇”；keeping options open翻译为“选项开放”错了，其本意是“不做决断，留出空间/退路”，所以可以翻译为“搁置问题”；“急于举行简单的去留公投”不妥，这种说法的重点在于“急于”，与后面的“听起来”搭配不当，应改为“即刻/立即/马上”；“政府抵制公投”的“抵制”不对，应当是“拒绝/否决”，at least until直接翻译为中文很困难，可以改为“即便要公投，也应当”；what sort of Europe Britain would be voting to remain in or leave的意思理解有差错，Europe和Britain之间是分开的，意思是“英国要投票决定去留的欧盟是什么样子”；it is what kept Britain out of the euro是过去时态的强调句型，意思是“过去英国就是靠这招才没有加入欧元区”。
Britain’s position in Europe may become untenable, if the resolution of the economic crisis binds the countries of the euro zone ever closer and all other EU countries join. But that is not a certainty, and nor is Britain’s steady marginalisation. Difficult and often humiliating as it may be, the best course is to stick close to Europe, and try to bend it towards Britain.
如果经济危机的解决让欧元区国家结合更紧密并且使得其他欧盟国家加入欧元区，那么英国在欧洲的地位将可能难以维持。但那也不一定，英国也不一定逐步边缘化。尽管困难而且可能遭受羞辱，但是最好的方法还是紧贴欧洲，并试图让其偏向英国。
if the resolution of the economic crisis binds the countries of the euro zone ever closer and all other EU countries join，这句话理解错了，resolution不是“经济危机的解决”而是“经济危机的解决方案”，而且other EU countries join的对象是这个“解决方案”而不是“欧元区”；“但那也不一定”偏口语化，应改为“但这并非定数/还有变数”；humiliating翻译为“遭受羞辱”不如“丢面子”；bend it towards Britain翻译为“让其偏向英国”不如“扭转它对英国的态度”。
通常，一篇长文章的翻译难度要远高于若干篇短文章，因为在文章内部需要维持一致性，如本文始终谈的是英国和欧洲的关系，但是这种一致性又会从多个侧面展开，本文就谈到，去或离，各有什么好处坏处，以及英国内部各派力量的现状和态度。所以这些，都是需要译者在阅读时从整体理解和把握的，不能弄错。
本篇译文有许多地方之所以弄错了，就是没有跳出字句的层面，从整体上理解原文。“工党通过加强退出欧盟的力量来使保守党政府承诺去留公投。如果真这样，工党也将不得不做出相同的承诺”就是典型的例子，工党和保守党的态度前文已经说明，既然工党要促进公投，为什么“果真如此”之后，工党又要“不得不做出相同的承诺”呢？这明显是翻译错了，即便只看中文也可以知道这里不通。
译文的另一大问题是有好几处弄错原文的结构，尤其是谁限定谁，谁修饰谁。最明显的例子就是Most of the heavy lifting, at home as well as in Brussels, will have to be done by Mr Cameron and his chancellor, George Osborne翻译为“不管在英国还是在布鲁塞尔，卡梅伦和他的大臣乔治·奥斯本都还有很多繁重的工作要做”，还有worry so much about……，其中的much是表示worry的程度，翻译成“担心太多金融交易税”则是用“太多”用来修饰“金融交易税”了。如果译者更认真一些，或者对英文的理解能力更深刻一些，是可以避免这类错误的。
From Life Sailor, post 翻译漫谈：新闻翻译【3】
注：原文发布于2023年1月16日 到1月份为止，我已经体验了几个月的全远程+共享空间办公了。有不少朋友听说之后很有兴趣，问我到底是什么感觉，所以我简单介绍下个人的体验。 背景 2019年末、2020年初开始在全球流行的Covid-19对远程办公来说，绝对是黑天鹅一般的存在。因为疫情导致的社交隔离措施，极大影响了各大公司的正常运转。 所幸，IT类公司受到的影响比较小，只要求员工“面对屏幕编程”，不必亲临现场。所以，许多IT公司也谨小慎微地开展了远程办公的试验。 从我所知道的结果来看，不少美国公司并不特别喜欢远程办公，比如Google，一旦社交隔离措施有所放松，就忙不迭要求员工回到办公室，盖因为公司认为远程办公严重影响合作效率。 与此相反，不少德国公司反倒是逐渐适应了远程办公的节奏，纷纷降低对员工“到办公室上班”的要求，许多公司甚至可以支持百分百的远程办公。 这里要提到的是，德国公司说的“远程办公”往往是货真价实的“远程”，而不是一些人理解的“家和办公室在同一个城市，只是不用去办公室”而已。 因为德国IT行业缺人严重，而且许多德国公司并没有那么“互联网”，而是依托实业开展业务，所以据我所知，目前不少公司非但没有裁员，反而都在大力招人。 (more…)
注：本文发布于2023年2月6日 最近硅谷几大公司都在裁员，看了些报道，被裁的员工真是不好过。损失经济来源不说，有些人还面临身份问题，这可真是屋漏偏逢连夜雨。 我也留意到，不少被裁的人会不停追问自己：为什么我会遇到这样的事情？为什么这样的不幸会降临到我头上？…… 实话说，我挺能理解这种态度。这挫折如此巨大，似乎又来得全无预兆，不由得让人对命运、对人生、对世界产生深重的怀疑。尤其是对已经走入社会，取得一定成就（如果非要抠字眼，那就用“进展”吧）的人来说，更是如此。 但是我更想说，如果被裁员了，当务之急是赶紧找到下一份工作，哪怕只是机械地行动。要知道，成年人找工作，容不下那么多愁善感。 我之所以这么说，是有切身经历为基础的。之前我讲过找德国工作的经历。最开始是信心十足的，因为虽然毕业多年，手艺没丢，基础还在，随时打开leetcode，中等难度题目基本都不在话下，不但能解对，解法也基本接近最优。既然网上都说“刷题就能找到工作”，估计自己应该没大问题。 没想到真的找起工作来，仍然充满了意想不到的挫折。如果不相信，我且举几个例子吧。 (more…)
虽然早就听说《园丁与木匠》是关于育儿的好书，但一直没开始读。最近终于翻开这本书，才发现属于“拿起就很难放下”的类型，加班加点读完，收获不少。 关于这本书的价值，已经有许多书评讨论过了，所以我想略过微言大义、长篇大论的叙述，谈谈我印象最深，也是最打动我的三点细节。 第一，儿童的学习方式 小孩子觉得拧螺丝很好玩，想自己动手拧一颗螺丝。于是，他打开了工具箱，对着琳琅满目的工具，他不知所措。一会儿摸摸钳子，一会儿试试扳手……这时候，旁边的父母应当怎么办？ 在大多数情况下，父母大概会直接告诉孩子，“亲爱的，你应该用螺丝刀，来，我告诉你”。耐心一点的父母，大概会潜心观察一段孩子的举动，再设法“引导”他到正确的工具上来。在父母眼里，孩子当然不可能一开始就找对正确答案，所以做各种尝试也是情有可原。但是另一方面，也不应该“在错误的路径上摸索太久，浪费时间”，应当“迅速识别出正确的答案”。 无论父母有多少耐心，在他们眼里，孩子找到拧螺丝的工具的过程，都是个“不断接近正确答案”的过程。这个过程越短，孩子就越“聪明”，或者说“学习效率”就越高。 (more…)
陈皓（Haoel，网名“左耳朵耗子”）上周六因为突发心梗去世了，享年47岁。 我跟他虽然聊过好些次，但只是微信好友，从未见过面。回看微信记录，当年稀松平常的一声“再见”，已经成了“再也不见”。 许多人在缅怀他，许多文章提到他的时候，会用到“骨灰级程序员”、“技术大牛”这样的称呼。但如果仅仅用这两个词描述他，断然难以解释，为什么他的突然去世，会引发互联网上怀念的狂潮。 所以，我更愿意按照自己的经验，把他描绘为“有坦诚追求，兼具趣味、操守、胸怀的技术人”。恰恰是因为这样的人在这个年代太稀少，而这些品质又让众多人赏识和受益，大家才会如此地怀念他。 这个年代，做技术（仅指狭义的IT）的人很多，愿意分享的人也不在少数，其中不少还可以算世俗意义上的“成功者”。 但是，若仔细去看他们分享的内容，总感觉不够真诚。总感觉作者希望往高深了靠，目的也没有那么纯粹。你若提一些小白问题，迎来的往往是“你怎么连这都不知道？”的反问，或者“要谈这个问题，你先去看几本书再说吧”。话是这么说没错，但无数的初学者也往往因此打了退堂鼓。 但是陈皓的分享不同。我已经不止一次地看到有人提起，他分享——更准确说，是“创作”——的内容质量很高，而且总能做到“深入浅出”。哪怕是小白读者，看完也确实能有收获，如果还有兴趣，更可以跟着文末的链接，顺藤摸瓜探究更广阔的世界。 这让我想起我佩服的一位记者说的：记者写文章的最高境界，就是不表达自己的观点，因为记者的观点应当来自于他的素材。只要把这些素材摆出来，读者读完报道，观点就自然形成了。要做到这一点，需要对素材有足够的信心和把握，外加真诚和坦荡。 能做到这一点的记者，着实不多。陈皓虽然不是记者，他写的技术文章却能让读者得到类似的结论——要知道，技术讨论往往是非常容易擦枪走火的——可见他运用素材和逻辑的功力，以及更重要的，他的真诚和坦荡。 (more…)
2022年我接手了一本技术图书的翻译，拖拖拉拉到现在，也快截稿了，现在能做的，就是反复审阅，查漏补缺。 但是，有个问题一直困扰着我，始终得不到解决，那就是“姑妈-姨妈”问题。 书的最前面有某业界大牛写的“丛书编辑前言”，里面提到my grandson is learning from his aunt, my youngest daughter。众所周知，英文里亲戚的称呼远比中文简单，grandson既可以指孙子，又可以指外孙，aunt既可以指姑妈，也可以指姨妈。 所以从逻辑分析，grandson可能是“孙子”也可能是“外孙”，那么my daughter对他来说既可能是“姨妈”也可能是“姑妈”，因为文中再没有相关的信息，任凭你分析，也不知道哪种组合才是对的。 因为之前一直忙着处理正文，这个问题一拖再拖。眼看要交稿了，没办法，我才给作者发电子邮件。对方是业界大牛，这个问题又如此的“细枝末节”，那么他会不会回复，有没有耐心回复，我完全不知道。…
注：原文发布于2023年12月22日。 上一篇文章（坚持了两年之后，小朋友突然不想去打冰球了…）发出来之后，出乎意料阅读量竟然创了近期新高，也收到了不少反馈，看来育儿确实是如今许多人关心的话题。 在我收到的留言中，有好几条都提到，小朋友“选择要学的东西之前应当谨慎认真，一旦自己做了决定，那么再苦再累也要坚持”，万万不能“半途而废”。这个说法我非常熟悉，“半途而废”这四个字更是深深触动了我。确实，我反复想过，也和家里领导讨论过这个问题：身为家长，你能接受孩子“半途而废”吗？ 答案当然是“不能”。 我写过自己小时候学手风琴的故事。那时候也有很多泪水、挣扎、反抗，每次闹到不可开交，我父亲就一本正经地说：“这是你自己选的，当时问你要不要学，你说要学，既然说了就必须做到……” 然而我还是没有能坚持下来，学了十年之后终于以“学习更重要”为理由自我解脱了。 等到再捡起来，已经是自己成为父亲之后。有更多时间练琴，更是到了欧洲之后的奢侈享受。虽然现在周围人都反馈我弹得还可以，也因此交到了不少朋友，但内心仍然有遗憾，一些很想弹的曲子，因为对我来说太难，实在是举步维艰。 如果当时没有半途而废，该是多好的一回事啊。 (more…)