The City of London is rarely starry¹ eyed about anything. But even by its hard-boiled standards, the Square Mile has always been ambivalent² in its attitude to the EU. While it relishes³ the opportunity presented by the single market in financial services, it also fears that Brussels might be some sort of Trojan horse for continental⁴ countries that are intent on snatching its business away.

伦敦金融城(City of London)很少会对什么事抱有不切实际的幻想。但即便按照其冷峻的标准，伦敦金融城在对欧盟(EU)的态度上也始终有些矛盾。尽管它享受着单一市场为金融服务带来的机遇，但它也担心，欧盟可能是打算抢走其业务的欧洲大陆国家派来的某种特洛伊木马。

In the years since the financial crisis, the concerns have been in the ascendant. The Square Mile has clashed with Brussels over the possibility of an EU-wide tax on financial transactions and the latter’s desire to place curbs⁵ on bankers’ pay. The City also worries that the regulatory change accompanying banking⁶ union may ultimately prove to be a ploy⁷ to bind⁸ London in red tape, eroding⁹ its competitiveness as a financial centre. David Cameron’s renegotiation of Britain’s EU membership has sought to establish “safeguards” to protect against this perceived threat.

在金融危机以来的几年里，这些担忧不断加剧。伦敦金融城与布鲁塞尔方面发生了冲突，后者不仅希望在欧盟范围内征收金融交易税，而且还想要限制银行家薪酬。伦敦金融城还担心，与银行业联盟相伴随的监管变化可能最终证明是一个用繁文缛节束缚伦敦的计谋，侵蚀其作为金融中心的竞争力。英国首相戴维愠蕓伦(David Cameron)就英国欧盟成员国身份的重新谈判，一直寻求建立“保护措施”防范这种感知到的威胁。

Nonetheless, when the possibility of exit is raised, few big financial institutions want to surrender that extra business. They would rather see the UK stay and fight its corner than depart.

然而，在英国退出欧盟的可能性上升之际，没有几家大型金融机构愿意交出这块额外的业务。它们宁愿看到英国留下来捍卫自己的利益而不是退出欧盟。

They are right to do so. For all the reputational blows it has taken, the City remains¹⁰ one of the few areas in which the UK is an undisputed global leader. The country runs a substantial surplus in trade in financial services, including with the EU. Roughly a quarter of the UK’s financial sector¹¹ business involves the single market, equivalent to 2 per cent of gross domestic product. And balanced on top is a wider array of professional services. Remove a slice of that activity and the prosperity of the whole would be materially reduced.

它们这么想是正确的。尽管声誉受创，但伦敦金融城依然是少数几个英国充当无可辩驳的全球领军者的领域之一。在金融服务贸易（包括与欧盟的金融服务贸易）中，英国处于巨额盈余。近四分之一的英国金融服务业务涉及单一市场，相当于国内生产总值(GDP)的2%。以之为基础，上面是更多种类的专业服务。若将这些活动去除一部分，整个英国的繁荣都会受到重大影响。

Brexiteers like to claim that this would not happen. We could continue to trade equably with the EU whether we were in or out, they argue. And anyway, non-EU markets are growing significantly faster. But without the “passporting” privileges that EU membership provides, activity would drift across the Channel. Non-EU firms would no longer be able to site their European operations in London and trade freely throughout the single market. And as these firms opened offices in Paris or Frankfurt, the size and reach of their London units would shrink.

主张英国退欧的人士喜欢宣称，这种情况将不会发生。他们辩称，无论我们是否退出欧盟，我们都可以继续稳定地与欧盟开展贸易。何况，欧盟以外市场正以高得多的速度增长。但如果没有欧盟成员国身份提供的“通关”特权，经济活动将会漂到英吉利海峡对面。非欧盟企业将不再能够将欧洲业务总部设在伦敦，也不再能够在整个单一市场自由贸易。而随着这些企业在巴黎或者法兰克福开设办公室，它们伦敦部门的规模和影响力将会缩小。

It is simply fallacious to argue that access could be preserved without the price of membership. Stick within the wider European Economic Area à la Norway and you retain the costs and rules without any influence over them. Swiss-style bilateral¹³ deals do not come with a passport attached.

有人认为，不用成为欧盟成员国也能保留进入单一市场的权利，这显然是荒谬的。像挪威那样留在更广泛的欧洲经济区(European Economic Area)内，你仍得承担成本并遵守规则，却对它们没有任何影响力。瑞士模式的双边协议不会带上一本护照。

There is moreover no regulatory nirvana outside the EU that would offset¹⁴ the erosion of business resulting from Brexit. London’s advantages as a financial centre were never down to the light-touch regulation of the boom years. And since the crisis Britain has rightly been at the forefront of tightening¹⁵ the rule book, intellectually and in practical terms.

此外，在欧盟之外不存在一个监管天堂来抵消退出欧盟对英国商业的侵蚀。伦敦作为金融中心的优势从来不在于繁荣期间的轻度监管。而自金融危机以来，英国一直正确地处于收紧规则的前沿，无论在思想上还是实践中。

City observers are of course right to worry about the new European regulatory framework. Mr Cameron’s safeguards are far from fail-safe and Britain’s interests will need defending.

伦敦金融城的观察人士担忧新的欧洲监管框架，这当然是合理的。卡梅伦的保护措施绝非自动防故障装置，英国的利益必须得到主动捍卫。

The antipathy¹⁶ of some member states to finance could lead to more onerous¹⁷ rules in future, or regulations being interpreted in ways that disproportionately hurt London. The European Central Bank’s attempt to pull all euro-denominated clearing into the eurozone may have been defeated in once. But such challenges will recur¹⁸.

一些欧盟成员国对金融的厌恶可能导致未来出台更繁琐的规则，或者以格外伤害伦敦的方式解读监管规则。欧洲央行(ECB)把所有以欧元计价的清算都集中到欧元区的企图或许被挫败了一次。但此类挑战将会重现。

The way to deal with this is not to head for the exit. That would leave the UK with no defences to mount against exclusion¹⁹. No, if the City is to prosper¹², Britain needs to stay at the European table, build alliances and defend this valuable turf.

解决这种挑战的方式不是退欧。退欧将让英国在受到排挤时没有可用的防御措施。不，若要想让伦敦金融城蓬勃发展，英国有必要留在欧盟，缔结联盟并捍卫这个宝贵的地盘。