【周末荐读】David Marsh: 聚焦英国脱欧公投——首相卡梅伦的两大误判（附英文原文）

观点速递

本文选自IMI学术委员、货币金融机构官方论坛(OMFIF)常务董事、执行总裁David Marsh为OMFIF“英国脱欧公投”话题撰写的系列评论。

作为英国著名经济学家、华尔街日报专栏作家、评论员，David Marsh用精妙的语言分析了英国对欧盟的政策及影响，指出在“英国脱欧”问题中，英首相卡梅伦的对欧盟策略存在的两大误判。

作者认为，卡梅伦提出英国脱欧并未帮助保守党减少党内分歧，反而加剧了党内矛盾。另一方面，卡梅伦在2013年首次提出“”脱欧公投“时认为欧盟在未来几年将不断加大政治经济一体化的进程，从而英国能更灵活地与欧盟谈判，同时仍保持在经济和安全领域关键决策的控制权。然而目前来看，欧盟在移民、社会安全、就业、投资、教育、经济增长等诸多领域面对诸多严峻挑战，而在如何解决这些问题至今仍没有很好的答案，当前欧盟形势似乎并不如卡梅伦最初预测那般乐观。

直至6月23日英国正式公投，OMFIF将针该话题持续发布100篇社评，本文为该系列中的第77篇。

英文原文如下：

Consequences of a non-settlement

Prime minister's miscalculations in EU strategy

by David Marsh in London

The European Union’s sorry state of paralysis is summed up in a tale of two speeches, three years apart. The chronicle provides ammunition for both sides in the UK’s in-out debate ahead of the 23 June EU referendum.

In a 40-minute address to the Bloomberg media group in January 2013 setting down the framework for a possible plebiscite, David Cameron mentioned no less than seven times hopes for an EU ’settlement’ to improve the bloc’s cohesiveness. In a speech of similar length at the British Museum on 9 May, how many times did the UK prime minister utter the word ’settlement’? Not once.

In his EU strategy, Cameron has made two key miscalculations. The first – less forgivable, in view of prior knowledge of the Conservatives’ predilection for knifing themselves in the back – was his belief that the referendum ploy would heal divisions within his party instead of, as is now apparent, inflaming them.

The other, more excusable, was Cameron’s assumption in 2013 that, by now, Europe would have taken firm steps towards becoming a more integrated political and economic community to meet its longer-term needs, above all in holding together monetary union.

Britain, for its part, he foresaw in 2013, would be able to negotiate flexible arrangements in keeping with UK desire to retain control over key decision-making on security and economics.

The depressing reality is that, in the intervening 36 months, in nearly all important areas, Europe has made practically no progress in preparing a better long-term basis – beyond taking further steps to implement already overdue plans for ’banking union’.

Thoroughgoing treaty change on which the French and Germans can agree is still years away – and may never happen. Brexiteers say the disarray shows the EU is unreformable. Pro-EU campaigners can point out, somewhat half-heartedly, that at least it demonstrates the unrealisablity of a European 'superstate'.

Europe’s stasis is symbolised by the inconclusive 24 May finance ministers’ accord on Greece. This allows Athens sufficient liquidity to make essential repayments this summer, but postpones until the end of the year (and probably until after next year’s French and German elections) key decisions on restructuring debts. Crucially, the International Monetary Fund will not decide until end-2016 whether to take part in the latest bail-out – although this merely postpones vital questions on whether and how Greek creditors will provide longer-term support.

The challenges confronting the EU – over migration, defence, social security, jobs, investment, education, growth and money – have increased in inverse proportion to its ability to resolve them.

Cameron in January 2013 said the EU’s ’main, overriding purpose’ was ’not to win peace, but to secure prosperity’. He foresaw ’a new settlement subject to the democratic legitimacy and accountability of national parliaments where member states combine in flexible co-operation, respecting national differences, not always trying to eliminate them.’

On 9 May, Cameron offered no hint of any forthcoming positive changes, emphasising far more the security, defence and economic risks of upsetting the status quo. 

The migration crisis and tensions over Russia and the Middle East have inevitably darkened the backcloth. In January 2013 Cameron mentioned ’security’ twice and ’war’ three times; in his May 2016 address there were 20 references to ’security’ and six to ’war’. 

In both speeches, Cameron brought up Commonwealth war cemeteries and the hundreds of thousands of British servicemen who died in two world wars. So Europe in 2016 offers a chance, perhaps, of averting some undefined tragedy, but very little hope of a better future. Hardly surprisingly, the vote is finely poised.

观点整理  程曦图文编辑  程曦

点击查看近期热文

欢迎加入群聊

为了增进与粉丝们的互动，IMI财经观察将建立微信交流群，欢迎大家参与。
入群方法：加群主为微信好友（微信号：imi605）,添加时备注个人姓名（实名认证）、单位、职务等信息，经群主审核后，即可被拉进群。
欢迎读者朋友多多留言与我们交流互动，推荐好文章可联系：邮箱[e-mail]；电话[phone]

关于我们
中国人民大学国际货币研究所（IMI）成立于2009年12月20日，是专注于货币金融理论、政策与战略研究的非营利性学术研究机构和新型专业智库。
中国人民银行副行长潘功胜与诺贝尔经济学奖得主蒙代尔出任IMI顾问委员会主任，委员包括王兆星、埃德蒙、苏宁、任志刚、李若谷、亚辛·安瓦尔、李扬、汉克、夏斌等9位国内外著名经济学家或政策领导人；中国人民银行副行长陈雨露出任学术委员会主任，委员会由46位来自国内外科研院所、政府部门或金融机构的著名专家学者组成。
自2012年起，研究所开始每年定期发布《人民币国际化报告》，重点探讨人民币国际化进程中面临的重大理论与政策问题。报告还被译成英文、日文、韩文、俄文、阿拉伯文等版本并在北京、香港、纽约、法兰克福、伦敦、新加坡和阿拉木图等地发布，引起国内外理论与实务界的广泛关注。
迄今为止，研究所已形成“人民币国际化与国际金融”、“宏观经济理论与政策”、“互联网金融”、“银行与财富管理”、“金融监管”等五个研究方向，并定期举办货币金融圆桌会议、大金融思想沙龙、燕山论坛、麦金农大讲坛、陶湘国际金融讲堂等具有重要学术影响力的高层次系列论坛或讲座。主要学术产品包括IMI大金融书系、《国际货币评论》（中文月刊&英文季刊）、《IMI研究动态》（周刊）、《国际货币金融每日综述》（日刊）等。国际货币网：www.imi.org.cn
微信号：IMI财经观察（点击识别下方二维码关注我们）