Some time between now and 2017, the British government will hold a referendum on whether to leave the European Union. We will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. But what does leaving the EU actually mean? There's a few scenarios for what could happen.在现在到 2017 年之间的某个时间，英国政府将举行一次是否退出欧盟的全民公投。英国人民将面对一个非常简单的选择：留下还是离开。但“脱欧”究竟意味着什么？可能出现的情况其实有好几种。

The first is total independence. Britain becomes just another country that sells to the EU but doesn't have to follow any of its silly rules. Just like the United States.第一种情况是完全独立。英国将成为一个向欧盟出售商品、但不必遵守欧盟那些“繁琐规则”的普通国家，就像美国一样。

This sounds empowered, like Britain is finally releasing itself from the shackles of Eurocrats and Brussels. But what it really means is that Britain would have to negotiate everything it sells to Europe on a case-by-case basis. This type of complicated bargaining leads to real costs.听起来这似乎很振奋人心，仿佛英国终于摆脱了欧盟官僚和布鲁塞尔的束缚。但实际上，这意味着英国出口到欧洲的每一种商品都必须逐项谈判。这种复杂的谈判方式会带来实实在在的成本。

US companies pay a 10% tariff on any car they sell in Europe. Tariffs on clothing are 30%. This scenario could cost Britain as much as 14% of its GDP.美国公司在欧洲出售汽车需要支付 10% 的关税，服装的关税则高达 30%。在这种情况下，英国可能会付出高达国内生产总值 14% 的代价。

That's as much as Greece lost in the first four years of the financial crisis. Alternatively, Britain could leave the EU but stay in the European Economic Area. Under this scenario, Britain becomes Norway.这相当于希腊在金融危机最初四年中所遭受的损失。另一种选择是，英国退出欧盟，但继续留在欧洲经济区。在这种情况下，英国将变成“挪威模式”。

It still buys and sells from Europe, but it's not a member of the club anymore. The only problem is, this doesn't actually get Britain out of European control. Members of the European Economic Area still have to contribute to the EU budget.英国仍然可以与欧洲进行买卖，但不再是“俱乐部”的成员。唯一的问题是，这并没有真正让英国摆脱欧盟的控制。欧洲经济区的成员国仍然需要向欧盟预算出资。

And they still have to follow EU regulations on everything they sell in Europe. A lot of the arguments for leaving the EU are about the weird rules that British companies have to follow when they export to Europe. But Britain would still have to follow all those rules, it just wouldn't have a say in making them anymore.而且，他们在向欧洲销售商品时仍然必须遵守欧盟的各项规定。许多脱欧的理由，正是因为英国企业在向欧洲出口时不得不遵循那些“奇怪的规则”。但在这种情况下，英国仍然要遵守所有这些规则，只是再也没有参与制定规则的发言权了。

The third option is for Britain to negotiate a special deal. A bilateral trade agreement custom-made for its own economy. Under this scenario, Britain becomes Switzerland.第三种选择是英国谈判一份特殊协议——一项为其自身经济量身定制的双边贸易协定。在这种情况下，英国将成为“瑞士模式”。

It's not officially a member of the European Economic Area or the EU, but it still gets all the benefits of selling its goods there. The problem with this scenario, though, is negotiating power. According to Brussels, the market can't be divided up sector by sector.瑞士既不是欧洲经济区成员国，也不是欧盟成员国，但仍然能够享受向欧洲销售商品的各种好处。不过，这种模式的问题在于谈判实力。布鲁塞尔方面认为，市场不能被拆分成一个个行业分别谈判。

If you want free trade, you have to agree to open up other parts of your market as well. Including the labor market. This is exactly what happened to Switzerland.如果你想要自由贸易，就必须同意同时开放市场的其他部分，包括劳动力市场。这正是瑞士所经历的情况。

In 2014, Swiss voters demanded restrictions on EU migration. But Brussels said no. If Switzerland wanted European trade, they had to take European workers as well.2014 年，瑞士选民要求限制来自欧盟的移民，但布鲁塞尔拒绝了这一要求。如果瑞士想继续与欧洲进行贸易，就必须接受欧洲劳工。

Switzerland, as a single country, just didn't have the negotiating power to stand up to 28 European countries at once. Most people who want Britain to leave the EU want freer trade and stricter immigration. But with the EU facing an unprecedented migration crisis, it's unlikely that Britain will get both.作为一个单独的国家，瑞士并没有足够的谈判能力去同时对抗 28 个欧洲国家。大多数希望英国脱欧的人，既想要更自由的贸易，又想要更严格的移民政策。但在欧盟正面临前所未有的移民危机之际，英国同时得到这两点的可能性并不大。

Maybe the EU is too rigid and too boring. Maybe it does need to adapt as the world changes around it. Maybe the exact thing it needs is a big, liberal, pragmatic member to push it in that direction and do it from the inside.也许欧盟确实过于僵化、过于乏味。也许它确实需要随着世界的变化而进行调整。也许它真正需要的，正是一个规模大、开放、务实的成员国，从内部推动它朝这个方向改变。

I wonder who that could be.我在想，那会是谁呢？