歐洲網(wǎng)友討論歐盟的作用
What is your opinion on the European unx?
譯文簡介
網(wǎng)友：歐盟由28個國家組成，它們共同努力使歐洲成為世界上最繁榮、最和平的地區(qū)之一。歐盟是有史以來最偉大的和平計劃，它徹底改變了歐洲的面貌。
正文翻譯
What is your opinion on the European unx?
你對歐盟有什么看法？
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 1 )
收藏
What are your views on EU?
A total of 28 countries working to make Europe the most prosperous, peaceful place on Earth.
The EU is the greatest peace project ever conceived. It has transformed Europe from this …
你如何看待歐盟？
歐盟由28個國家組成，它們共同努力使歐洲成為世界上最繁榮、最和平的地區(qū)之一。
歐盟是有史以來最偉大的和平計劃，它徹底改變了歐洲的面貌。
它在勢不兩立的敵人（法國、英國和德國）之間維持了近80年的和平；它促使軍事DC政權在沒有戰(zhàn)爭的情況下轉變?yōu)槊裰鲊遥ㄈ缙咸蜒?、西班牙和希臘）；它將冷戰(zhàn)中的貧困國家融入西方世界（如波蘭、匈牙利和德意志民主共和國）；它使得5.1億歐洲人比以往任何時候都要富裕。
所有典型的國家間沖突源頭都通過一套全面且透明的規(guī)則、協(xié)議和條約得到了緩解，這些規(guī)則確保了所有參與者在經濟上有一個公平的競爭環(huán)境，強國能夠為弱國提供經濟援助，并且各國人民有機會在彼此的國家生活、工作和定居。
Nothing is perfect. The EU, while greater than the sum of its parts, has many flaws as do its constituent member states. It is inevitably an ongoing, never finished work in progress. Nonetheless, the following statement remains absolutely accurate:
Those of us that live in the EU live in the most peaceful, prosperous and enlightened supranational democracy that has ever existed anywhere or at anytime in the full sweep of human history.
That’s what I think of the EU.
歐盟成員國的軍事預算之低并非偶然，我們已經將地球上最危險的地區(qū)轉變?yōu)樽畎踩牡貐^(qū)之一。
萬事皆非完美。歐盟雖然整體實力超過了其成員國的總和，但同樣存在許多不足，就像其成員國一樣。它是一個永無止境、始終在進行中的工程。盡管如此，以下觀點仍然完全正確：我們這些生活在歐盟中的人，生活在人類歷史上最和平、最繁榮、最開明的超國家民主體系中。
這就是我對歐盟的看法。
Some wag once said that ever since the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe has been trying to put it back together. Holy Roman Empire, the wars of the 17th and 19th century, Napoleon, Hitler. The EU has come closest of all.
有人曾幽默地說，自從羅馬帝國衰落以來，歐洲一直在試圖將其重新拼湊。從神圣羅馬帝國到17世紀和19世紀的戰(zhàn)爭，再到拿破侖、希特勒，歐盟是最接近成功的嘗試。
… but with consent!!! Thats the EU's magic sauce.
但是這一切都是基于共識！這就是歐盟的魔力所在。
Indeed! The EU is Pax Romana 2.0.
確實！歐盟就像是羅馬和平的2.0版本。
As a huge EU supporter, I agree with practically everything here, but I find your argument about defense spending somewhat disingenuous.
The NATO member spending disproportionately more on defense than anybody else is the US. Combine this with the fact that the US GDP is the largest in the world, and it becomes clear that the US plays an outsized role in providing the security that we Europeans rely on.
作為一個堅定的歐盟支持者，我?guī)缀跬膺@里的所有觀點，但我覺得你們關于國防開支的論點有些不坦率。
作為北約成員國的美國在國防上的開支遠超其他國家?？紤]到美國GDP全球最高，很明顯美國在提供我們歐洲依賴的安全保障方面扮演了重要角色。
我不太情愿地同意那些主張孤立主義的美國人的觀點，即我們的安全很大程度上得益于美國的資金支持。如果沒有美國，我們歐洲將不得不在國防上投入更多資金。鑒于未來幾十年美國力量的不確定性，我認為現(xiàn)在是時候推動我們的軍事自主——最好是通過一個團結的歐盟軍隊來實現(xiàn)。
It’s worth noting that we in America are so addicted to the idea of spending money on our military, not for the state of Colorado to attack the state of Tennessee, not to attack or defend against Canada or Mexico, but just for the sake of patriotism, that the money ends up going… wherever it goes.
If the EU didn’t take our money, what would we do with it? We certainly wouldn’t save it. We are compulsive military spenders. It’s rather generous of the EU countries to allow our soldiers to be stationed in their countries.
值得注意的是，我們美國人如此沉迷于軍事開支，不是為了科羅拉多州攻擊田納西州，也不是為了攻擊或防御加拿大或墨西哥，而僅僅是出于愛國心，這些資金最終流向了……它們流向的地方。
如果歐盟不接受我們的錢，我們會用它做什么呢？我們肯定不會節(jié)省。我們是軍事開支的強迫性消費者。歐盟國家允許我們的士兵駐扎在他們的國家，這實際上是相當慷慨的。
There’s no doubt that the USA is spending more on defence than China, the Saudis, Russia, and all of Europe combined. However, just a minor point of order, I don’t think the EU actually takes any money from the US for expenditure on NATO.
毫無疑問，美國在國防上的開支超過了中國、沙特、俄羅斯以及整個歐洲的總和。不過，我想指出一個小問題，我不認為歐盟實際上從美國那里拿走了任何用于北約開支的資金。
A lot of nato countries followed the us in its stupid wars in the middle east. We didnt have to but we did because we value the us as an ally.
許多北約國家跟隨美國參與了其在中東的愚蠢戰(zhàn)爭。我們本不必這么做，但我們還是做了，因為我們珍視與美國作為盟友的關系。
do you have any idea who would attak eu ?
你有沒有想過誰會攻擊歐盟？
Let us assume the EU was independent from the NATO in the defense mission. A look from Poland towards Ukraine shows enough to answer your question. Also, not only an aggression from Russia could be possible if the EU is weak, but also the fights between Greece and Turkey are quite recurring events. For me, even just those incidents are more than a reason enough for there to be a European Army that can stand independently from the NATO.
假設歐盟在防御任務上獨立于北約。從波蘭向烏克蘭方向看去，就足以回答你的問題。此外，如果歐盟不夠強大，可能面臨的不僅是俄羅斯的侵略，希臘和土耳其之間的沖突也是屢見不鮮。對我而言，這些事件本身就足以成為建立一個能夠獨立于北約的歐洲軍隊的充分理由。
Firstly, don’t confuse NATO with the EU - they are completely different organisations. If an isolationist USA withdraws from Europe then NATO may become pointless, but that doesn’t leave Europe defenceless.
In terms of external threats to the EU there is really only Russia and the Middle East. Russia is not nearly are strong as is often portrayed (neither was the USSR as we now know). The UK and France combined out-spend and out-gun Russia militarily and no country in the Middle East can threaten the EU militarily.
首先，不要將北約和歐盟混為一談——它們是完全不同的組織。如果美國這個孤立主義者從歐洲撤軍，那么北約可能變得無足輕重，但這并不意味著歐洲就毫無防御能力。
就歐盟面臨的外部威脅而言，實際上只有俄羅斯和中東。俄羅斯并沒有外界通常所描述的那么強大（正如我們現(xiàn)在所知，蘇聯(lián)也是如此）。英國和法國的軍事開支和實力都超過了俄羅斯，而且中東沒有任何國家能在軍事上威脅到歐盟。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
The OP was bringing NATO and the EU together in their analysis so I was addressing that. In any case, the overlap between the two is substantial enough; the only militarily significant NATO members that are not also EU members are Turkey, Canada, and the US itself
樓主將北約和歐盟混為一談，所以我在回應這一點。無論如何，兩者之間的重疊已經足夠大；唯一在軍事上重要的北約成員國而非歐盟成員國的是土耳其、加拿大和美國本身。
Yet somehow, all the american wars(also major European powers) weren't defensive in the past 50 yrs, all It brought was devastation and destruction to some regions. Look at regions in the middle east, supporting terrorism, funding Islamists extremist groups, and from the other hand bombing them in the name of the saviors. When it comes to politics its rather simplistic to think US is funding its military for the sake of maintaining the global peace. Its definitely to expand its monopoly, the militarization doesn't have a direct outcome but with indirect intimidation is holding its foot as the supreme power, controlling global economic system, having the international currency ,etc.
然而，不知何故，所有美國（以及主要歐洲大國）在過去50年里發(fā)動的戰(zhàn)爭都不是防御性的，它們只給某些地區(qū)帶來了破壞和毀滅。看看中東地區(qū)，一方面支持恐怖主義，資助伊斯蘭極端組織，另一方面又以救世主的名義轟炸他們。當涉及到政治時，認為美國資助其軍隊是為了維護全球和平的想法過于簡單。這絕對是為了擴大其壟斷，軍事化沒有直接結果，但通過間接恐嚇保持其作為至高無上的力量，控制全球經濟體系，擁有國際貨幣等。
許多國家拒絕了美國資本主義的擴張，然而這些國家卻被妖魔化為真正的敵人，如古巴、北越等。
What is really funny that unified Vietnam is now very cordial with the USA . Of course they have a rather big neighbor which tried to invade and now wants to take away their fishing grounds . The Americans aren’t so bad after all, I presume ;)
真正有趣的是，統(tǒng)一后的越南現(xiàn)在與美國非常友好。當然，他們有一個相當強大的鄰居，這個鄰居曾試圖入侵，現(xiàn)在又想奪走他們的漁場。我猜美國人也并不是那么糟糕。
That would be true if there was a similarly strong opponent - but there isn’t - the EU outspends any possible opponent by quite a lot - why spend MORE?
如果有一個同樣強大的對手，那倒是真的——但并沒有——歐盟的開支遠遠超過任何可能的對手——為什么要花更多？
Total spending is not equivalent to military capability. Russian spending is concentrated on one force: the Russian military. EU military spending is distributed across many countries, each with their own military of varying efficacy and doctrine. If Russia were to hypothetically spend 3 billion USD on its military, that would be much more efficient for it than 5 countries spending the same amount of money. The flat truth is that most countries in Europe are not ready for an armed confrontation on their own - though it is also unreasonable to expect countries like Malta or Portugal to be capable of holding off Russia. This is why I am in favour of an integrated EU military, much like has already been lightly trialed with the Franco-German Eurocorps, but on a larger scale. Unfortunately that suggestion is politically suicidal in today’s nationalist political climate.
總開支并不等同于軍事能力。俄羅斯的開支集中在一個力量上：俄羅斯軍隊。歐盟的軍事開支分散在許多國家，每個國家都有自己的軍隊，效能和教義各不相同。如果俄羅斯假設在軍事上花費30億美元，那對它來說比五個國家花費同樣金額的錢要有效得多。坦率地說，大多數(shù)歐洲國家都沒有準備好單獨進行武裝對抗——盡管也不合理期待像馬耳他或葡萄牙這樣的國家能夠抵御俄羅斯。這就是為什么我支持一個一體化的歐盟軍隊，就像已經輕微嘗試過的法德歐軍團那樣，但規(guī)模要更大。不幸的是，在當今的民族主義政治氛圍中，這個建議在政治上是自殺性的。
Having lived in Ireland before we joined the EU I can honestly say that joining the EU was one of the best thing Ireland ever did
在愛爾蘭加入歐盟之前，我就住在那，我可以誠實地說，加入歐盟是愛爾蘭做過的最好的事情之一。
Indeed. Whatever problems we now have, they would be infinitely worse if we had not joined the then, EEC in 1973. We have always been committed Europeans and long may we remain so.
確實。無論我們現(xiàn)在有什么問題，如果我們當時沒有加入歐洲經濟共同體，情況會無限糟糕。我們一直是堅定的歐洲人，希望我們能一直保持這樣。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
Your are correct. The EEC was constituted with the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1956. It's over-riding purpose was to prevent the destruction of Europe as had happened in two World Wars. To date it has largely been successful in that obxtive.
你是對的。歐洲經濟共同體是在1956年簽署《羅馬條約》時成立的。它的主要目的是防止像兩次世界大戰(zhàn)那樣破壞歐洲的事件。迄今為止，它在這方面已經相當成功。
While I mostly agree with what you have posted, I’d like to point out that the EU only began November 1st, 1993. On one hand, that speaks volumes as to how much can be accomplished in a such a short time. On the other hand, it does refute your claim that the EU is responsible for 80 years of peace. It has not existed that long.
雖然我同意你的大部分觀點，但我想指出，歐盟實際上是在1993年11月1日成立的。一方面，這表明在如此短的時間內可以完成很多事情。另一方面，這確實反駁了你的說法，即歐盟負責了80年的和平——它存在的時間并沒有那么長。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉載請注明出處
Thank you Dave for prompting me to look it up.
Brian Coughlan does not claim 80 years of peace, he states “It has maintained peace between implacable enemies for almost 80 years.”
感謝Dave提醒我查找資料。
Brian Coughlan并沒有聲稱維持了80年的和平，他實際上說的是“它在近80年里維持了宿敵之間的和平。”
The predecessor of the EU was the EEC. The EEC existed from 1958 till 1993
首先，你說得對，歐盟是在1993年成立的，但這忽略了它成立的初衷。
歐盟的前身是歐洲經濟共同體（EEC）。EEC從1958年一直存在到1993年。
So, it actually means that we had more than 70 years of peace
在EEC之前還有比荷盧經濟聯(lián)盟。該協(xié)議是在1944年于倫敦簽署的。
所以，實際上我們已經有超過70年的和平歷史。
Ahh, that makes more sense. And, the rest of the background helps as well. Thank you.
嗯，這樣解釋更合理。而且，其他的背景信息也很有幫助。謝謝。
As a Europhile and *cough* Swiss citizen I also believe the EU is one of the most beautiful human achievement of a dream.
Gene Hunter
作為一個熱愛歐洲的人，同時也是瑞士公民，我同樣認為歐盟是人類實現(xiàn)夢想的最美妙成就之一。
Your assumptions are false and weak.
你的假設是錯誤的，而且站不住腳。
歐盟的歷史就追溯到1992年。不能僅僅因為之前的條約被整合進一個更大的體系，就把它們算作“類似歐盟”。1992年之前的西歐已經處于和平狀態(tài)，經濟穩(wěn)定，增長良好。然后歐元、申根區(qū)、28個成員國……這些都是在歐洲已經和平繁榮之后才出現(xiàn)的。親歐派和脫歐派一樣無知，他們告訴你沒有歐盟就會有瘟疫、沖突和災難，但說真的，這顯然是錯誤的。沒有歐盟，我們會有健康的跨國合作，只是沒有那個位于布魯塞爾（或者是斯特拉斯堡？沒人知道。反正也沒人在乎）的有缺陷的超國家機構。
I don’t know your background but I can assure you I lived and worked in both periods.I started working in 1978) What I do know is the benefits of the Euro, the expanding of the markets and the general ease of doing business in the EU. It was quite different before with the long lines on customs etc.. Also I applaud a lot of European regulations which has evened a lot of the playing field and has certainly increased a lot of protection for the consumers. All this did NOT exist before the EU. There is still a lot to be done to make it smoother etc.. but don’t forget that most of these things have to pass the European parlement and/or the commission where all members have to agree.
我不知道你的背景，但我可以向你保證，我在這兩個時期都生活和工作過。我1978年開始工作。我知道歐元的好處，市場的擴張和在歐盟做生意的便利性。以前的情況很不一樣，比如要在海關那里排長隊等等。我也為許多歐洲法規(guī)鼓掌，這些法規(guī)平衡了很多競爭環(huán)境，肯定增加了很多對消費者的保護。所有這些在歐盟之前都不存在。還有很多事情需要做來使其更加順暢等等。但別忘了，這些事情中的大部分都必須通過歐洲議會和/或委員會，所有成員都必須同意。
If only British voters had received this message from their govt over the last 40+ years (instead of villifying the “evil” EU as a convenient scapegoat for the govt’s own failings), Brexit would not be under discussion.
如果英國選民在過去40多年里從他們的政府那里得到了這個信息（而不是詆毀“邪惡”的歐盟，把它當作政府自己失敗的替罪羊），英國退歐就不會在討論之中了。
absolutely right.
I like how you point out that peace is the greatest accomplishment. Yes, we are richer and more democratic but above all we are not at war with each other.
I’m always terribly scared at anti-EU sentiment and how people neglect to remember that the EU is the only thing that has kept irreconcilable enemies allied as one.
完全正確。
我喜歡你指出和平是最偉大的成就。是的，我們更富有，更民主，但最重要的是我們不再彼此發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭。
我總是非常害怕反歐盟的情緒，以及人們忽視記住歐盟是唯一讓不可調和的敵人結盟的存在。
In all honesty, these are more so consequences of the times, than of the EU.
It is rather perplexing to suggest the EU has made Italy, Spain, Greece etc richer.
Greece, in particular, has suffered immensely, and had to shoulder a huge migrant crisis because of EU rules.
說實話，這些更多是時代的產物，而不是歐盟的功勞。
認為歐盟使意大利、西班牙、希臘等國家更富有是相當令人困惑的。
特別是希臘，它遭受了巨大的損失，由于歐盟的規(guī)定，它不得不承擔巨大的移民危機。