英语家园

 找回密码
 注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

溜乎英语
超棒的英语学习网站快速提高英语水平YY语音频道,免费学习本广告位招租

社区广播台

查看: 112|回复: 0
收起左侧

[TED] 【TED】英国为什么选择脱欧,我们应该怎么办?

[复制链接]
发表于 2017-4-17 00:02:44 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式



0:12

I am British.

0:14

(Laughter)

0:16

(Applause)

0:19

Never before has the phrase "I am British" elicited so much pity.

0:23

(Laughter)

0:25

I come from an island where many of us like to believe there's been a lot of continuity over the last thousand years. We tend to have historically imposed change on others but done much less of it ourselves.

0:38

So it came as an immense shock to me when I woke up on the morning of June 24 to discover that my country had voted to leave the European Union, my Prime Minister had resigned, and Scotland was considering a referendum that could bring to an end the very existence of the United Kingdom. So that was an immense shock for me, and it was an immense shock for many people, but it was also something that, over the following several days, created a complete political meltdown in my country. There were calls for a second referendum, almost as if, following a sports match, we could ask the opposition for a replay. Everybody was blaming everybody else. People blamed the Prime Minister for calling the referendum in the first place. They blamed the leader of the opposition for not fighting it hard enough. The young accused the old. The educated blamed the less well-educated. That complete meltdown was made even worse by the most tragic element of it: levels of xenophobia and racist abuse in the streets of Britain at a level that I have never seen before in my lifetime. People are now talking about whether my country is becoming a Little England, or, as one of my colleagues put it, whether we're about to become a 1950s nostalgia theme park floating in the Atlantic Ocean.

2:01

(Laughter)

2:04

But my question is really, should we have the degree of shock that we've experienced since? Was it something that took place overnight? Or are there deeper structural factors that have led us to where we are today? So I want to take a step back and ask two very basic questions. First, what does Brexit represent, not just for my country, but for all of us around the world? And second, what can we do about it? How should we all respond?

2:36

So first, what does Brexit represent? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Brexit teaches us many things about our society and about societies around the world. It highlights in ways that we seem embarrassingly unaware of how divided our societies are. The vote split along lines of age, education, class and geography. Young people didn't turn out to vote in great numbers, but those that did wanted to remain. Older people really wanted to leave the European Union. Geographically, it was London and Scotland that most strongly committed to being part of the European Union, while in other parts of the country there was very strong ambivalence. Those divisions are things we really need to recognize and take seriously. But more profoundly, the vote teaches us something about the nature of politics today. Contemporary politics is no longer just about right and left. It's no longer just about tax and spend. It's about globalization. The fault line of contemporary politics is between those that embrace globalization and those that fear globalization.

3:49

(Applause)

3:54

If we look at why those who wanted to leave -- we call them "Leavers," as opposed to "Remainers" -- we see two factors in the opinion polls that really mattered. The first was immigration, and the second sovereignty, and these represent a desire for people to take back control of their own lives and the feeling that they are unrepresented by politicians. But those ideas are ones that signify fear and alienation. They represent a retreat back towards nationalism and borders in ways that many of us would reject. What I want to suggest is the picture is more complicated than that, that liberal internationalists, like myself, and I firmly include myself in that picture, need to write ourselves back into the picture in order to understand how we've got to where we are today. When we look at the voting patterns across the United Kingdom, we can visibly see the divisions. The blue areas show Remain and the red areas Leave. When I looked at this, what personally struck me was the very little time in my life I've actually spent in many of the red areas. I suddenly realized that, looking at the top 50 areas in the UK that have the strongest Leave vote, I've spent a combined total of four days of my life in those areas. In some of those places, I didn't even know the names of the voting districts. It was a real shock to me, and it suggested that people like me who think of ourselves as inclusive, open and tolerant, perhaps don't know our own countries and societies nearly as well as we like to believe.

5:37

(Applause)

5:47

And the challenge that comes from that is we need to find a new way to narrate globalization to those people, to recognize that for those people who have not necessarily been to university, who haven't necessarily grown up with the Internet, that don't get opportunities to travel, they may be unpersuaded by the narrative that we find persuasive in our often liberal bubbles.

6:09

(Applause)

6:14

It means that we need to reach out more broadly and understand. In the Leave vote, a minority have peddled the politics of fear and hatred, creating lies and mistrust around, for instance, the idea that the vote on Europe could reduce the number of refugees and asylum-seekers coming to Europe, when the vote on leaving had nothing to do with immigration from outside the European Union. But for a significant majority of the Leave voters the concern was disillusionment with the political establishment. This was a protest vote for many, a sense that nobody represented them, that they couldn't find a political party that spoke for them, and so they rejected that political establishment.

7:00

This replicates around Europe and much of the liberal democratic world. We see it with the rise in popularity of Donald Trump in the United States, with the growing nationalism of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, with the increase in popularity of Marine Le Pen in France. The specter of Brexit is in all of our societies.

7:24

So the question I think we need to ask is my second question, which is how should we collectively respond? For all of us who care about creating liberal, open, tolerant societies, we urgently need a new vision, a vision of a more tolerant, inclusive globalization, one that brings people with us rather than leaving them behind.

7:47

That vision of globalization is one that has to start by a recognition of the positive benefits of globalization. The consensus amongst economists is that free trade, the movement of capital, the movement of people across borders benefit everyone on aggregate. The consensus amongst international relations scholars is that globalization brings interdependence, which brings cooperation and peace. But globalization also has redistributive effects. It creates winners and losers. To take the example of migration, we know that immigration is a net positive for the economy as a whole under almost all circumstances. But we also have to be very aware that there are redistributive consequences, that importantly, low-skilled immigration can lead to a reduction in wages for the most impoverished in our societies and also put pressure on house prices. That doesn't detract from the fact that it's positive, but it means more people have to share in those benefits and recognize them.

8:54

In 2002, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, gave a speech at Yale University, and that speech was on the topic of inclusive globalization. That was the speech in which he coined that term. And he said, and I paraphrase, "The glass house of globalization has to be open to all if it is to remain secure. Bigotry and ignorance are the ugly face of exclusionary and antagonistic globalization."

9:30

That idea of inclusive globalization was briefly revived in 2008 in a conference on progressive governance involving many of the leaders of European countries. But amid austerity and the financial crisis of 2008, the concept disappeared almost without a trace. Globalization has been taken to support a neoliberal agenda. It's perceived to be part of an elite agenda rather than something that benefits all. And it needs to be reclaimed on a far more inclusive basis than it is today.

10:04

So the question is, how can we achieve that goal? How can we balance on the one hand addressing fear and alienation while on the other hand refusing vehemently to give in to xenophobia and nationalism? That is the question for all of us. And I think, as a social scientist, that social science offers some places to start. Our transformation has to be about both ideas and about material change, and I want to give you four ideas as a starting point.

10:36

The first relates to the idea of civic education. What stands out from Brexit is the gap between public perception and empirical reality. It's been suggested that we've moved to a postfactual society, where evidence and truth no longer matter, and lies have equal status to the clarity of evidence. So how can we --

10:59

(Applause)

11:01

How can we rebuild respect for truth and evidence into our liberal democracies? It has to begin with education, but it has to start with the recognition that there are huge gaps.

11:13

In 2014, the pollster Ipsos MORI published a survey on attitudes to immigration, and it showed that as numbers of immigrants increase, so public concern with immigration also increases, although it obviously didn't unpack causality, because this could equally be to do not so much with numbers but the political and media narrative around it. But the same survey also revealed huge public misinformation and misunderstanding about the nature of immigration. For example, in these attitudes in the United Kingdom, the public believed that levels of asylum were a greater proportion of immigration than they were, but they also believed the levels of educational migration were far lower as a proportion of overall migration than they actually are. So we have to address this misinformation, the gap between perception and reality on key aspects of globalization. And that can't just be something that's left to our schools, although that's important to begin at an early age. It has to be about lifelong civic participation and public engagement that we all encourage as societies.

12:25

The second thing that I think is an opportunity is the idea to encourage more interaction across diverse communities.

12:32

(Applause)

12:36

One of the things that stands out for me very strikingly, looking at immigration attitudes in the United Kingdom, is that ironically, the regions of my country that are the most tolerant of immigrants have the highest numbers of immigrants. So for instance, London and the Southeast have the highest numbers of immigrants, and they are also by far the most tolerant areas. It's those areas of the country that have the lowest levels of immigration that actually are the most exclusionary and intolerant towards migrants.

13:06

So we need to encourage exchange programs. We need to ensure that older generations who maybe can't travel get access to the Internet. We need to encourage, even on a local and national level, more movement, more participation, more interaction with people who we don't know and whose views we might not necessarily agree with.

13:25

The third thing that I think is crucial, though, and this is really fundamental, is we have to ensure that everybody shares in the benefits of globalization. This illustration from the Financial Times post-Brexit is really striking. It shows tragically that those people who voted to leave the European Union were those who actually benefited the most materially from trade with the European Union. But the problem is that those people in those areas didn't perceive themselves to be beneficiaries. They didn't believe that they were actually getting access to material benefits of increased trade and increased mobility around the world.

14:04

I work on questions predominantly to do with refugees, and one of the ideas I spent a lot of my time preaching, mainly to developing countries around the world, is that in order to encourage the integration of refugees, we can't just benefit the refugee populations, we also have to address the concerns of the host communities in local areas. But in looking at that, one of the policy prescriptions is that we have to provide disproportionately better education facilities, health facilities, access to social services in those regions of high immigration to address the concerns of those local populations. But while we encourage that around the developing world, we don't take those lessons home and incorporate them in our own societies.

14:49

Furthermore, if we're going to really take seriously the need to ensure people share in the economic benefits, our businesses and corporations need a model of globalization that recognizes that they, too, have to take people with them.

15:04

The fourth and final idea I want to put forward is an idea that we need more responsible politics. There's very little social science evidence that compares attitudes on globalization. But from the surveys that do exist, what we can see is there's huge variation across different countries and time periods in those countries for attitudes and tolerance of questions like migration and mobility on the one hand and free trade on the other. But one hypothesis that I think emerges from a cursory look at that data is the idea that polarized societies are far less tolerant of globalization. It's the societies like Sweden in the past, like Canada today, where there is a centrist politics, where right and left work together, that we encourage supportive attitudes towards globalization. And what we see around the world today is a tragic polarization, a failure to have dialogue between the extremes in politics, and a gap in terms of that liberal center ground that can encourage communication and a shared understanding. We might not achieve that today, but at the very least we have to call upon our politicians and our media to drop a language of fear and be far more tolerant of one another.

16:20

(Applause)

16:28

These ideas are very tentative, and that's in part because this needs to be an inclusive and shared project.

16:37

I am still British. I am still European. I am still a global citizen. For those of us who believe that our identities are not mutually exclusive, we have to all work together to ensure that globalization takes everyone with us and doesn't leave people behind. Only then will we truly reconcile democracy and globalization.

17:06

Thank you.

17:08

(Applause)

0:12

我是一名英国人。

0:14

(笑声)

0:16

(掌声)

0:19

这句话从来没有 引起过这样的怜悯。

0:23

(笑声)

0:25

就像我们中大多数想的那样, 我来自于一座岛, 在过去的一千多年里 文化在那里延续传承。 我们总是会给别人带来种种变革, 但却没给自己带来多少。

0:38

所以当我在6月24号的早晨醒来, 我感到很震惊, 我的国家进行了公投,决定脱离欧盟, 首相辞职了, 苏格兰也考虑重启公投, 这有可能会分裂我的国家。 对我,甚至对其他很多人来说, 这简直就是晴天霹雳, 这件事也在过去的这些日子里 给我的国家制造了一个重大的 政治危机。 有人呼吁进行第二轮公投, 就像是进行一场体育竞赛一样, 我们可以提出申诉并要求重来。 所有人都在互相责怪。 人们指责首相, 指责他允许了这次公投。 指责反对人士抗议得不够彻底。 年轻人指责老年人。 知识分子指责教育程度低的人。 这场危机更因为一种现象而 变得更加糟糕: 我从没有在英国街头看到过 如此严重的排外现象, 以及种族歧视。 人们在讨论我的国家可能会变成小英格兰, 或者是,按我同事的话说, 我们就要变成一个在大西洋上飘着的 五十年代怀旧主义公园。

2:01

(笑声)

2:04

但是我的问题是, 我们应该为这种事情的发生 而感到如此的震惊吗? 它是一夜间突然就发生的事情吗? 或者,有没有一些更深层次的原因 让我们走到了今天? 所以我打算回头想一想, 提两个最基本的问题。 第一个,英国脱欧对于全球所有的人, 不仅仅是我的同胞, 到底意味着什么? 第二,我们能做什么? 我们要怎样应对?

2:36

所以第一,英国脱欧意味着什么? 前车之鉴总是好的。 英国脱欧给我们的国家以及其他的国家, 上了内容丰富的一课。 它突显了我们的社会现在 存在着从未被察觉的 巨大的分歧。 投票者按年龄、教育程度、收入 和地域区进行了划分。 除了那些想留在欧盟的, 年轻人中投票的并不是很多。 年龄大些的人们则很想离开欧盟。 从地理位置来讲,伦敦和苏格兰强烈地 想要留在欧盟, 而与此同时, 其他地区的人们却更加矛盾和纠结。 这些分歧应当好好被了解以及重视。 但是往深里说, 这次公投告诉了我们 当今政治的本质。 当代政治不再仅仅是左翼与右翼。 不再仅仅是收税以及开支。 当代政治是全球性的。 当代政治的分界线是 接受全球化, 还是拒绝全球化。

3:49

(掌声)

3:54

如果我们看看脱欧者—— 对应于留欧者——想要脱欧的理由, 我们可以在他们的理由里看到两点, 两个重要的点。 第一个是移民,第二个是主权, 这些代表了人们想要掌管自己人生的欲望, 还有那些没被政治家所表达的感受。 但是那些想法意味着恐惧与抵触, 它们代表着向民族主义 以及两极分化趋势的倒退, 而这却是我们很多人不愿看到的。 我想要描述的是一个比那个更复杂的局面, 即自由国际主义者, 我就是其中之一, 我把自己也归到这一类人当中, 需要退回到当初那个大环境中, 才能理解我们是如何走到今天这个地步的。 当我们看到英国公投结果的地域分布图时, 可以明显看到分界线。 蓝色地区的想要留下, 红色地区的想要离开。 当我看到这个的时候, 让我感到吃惊的, 是我生命里只有短暂的时光 花在了红色地区里。 我最终意识到,我的生命中只有4天 花在了脱欧意愿 最强烈的50个区。 在有些地方, 我甚至不知道那些选区的名字。 这真的让我深受打击, 它提醒了像我这样的人, 我们自认为是 包容、开放、慷慨的一群人, 却可能并不像我们以为的那样 了解我们的国家和社会。

5:37

(掌声)

5:47

脱欧带来的挑战是,我们需要 寻找到一条新出路, 让这些人接受全球化的现状, 要认识到那些没有上过大学的人, 没有接触过网络的人, 没有机会旅游的人, 他们可能不会为我们鼓吹的自由主义 “糖衣炮弹”所动摇。

6:09

(掌声)

6:14

这意味着,我们需要理解和接受 更广泛的事物。

6:18

在决定离开的投票中, 一小部份人煽动着人们的负面情绪, 制造着谎言与猜疑, 比如,他们会传播 离开欧盟可以减少难民以及 来英国寻求庇护的人这种观点, 但事实上离开欧盟根本不会减少 来自欧盟以及其他国家的移民。 但是大部分脱欧人士 都怀有由现有政治体系而引发的担忧。 这是许多人对于不被尊重, 不被关注, 没有党派为其发声的一种反抗, 所以他们想要拒绝现有的政治系统。

7:00

这样的现象在欧洲以及世界上 其它很多自由的民主社会里比比皆是。 我们看到在美国,川普赢得了很多支持。 在匈牙利,欧尔班•维克托 带领着民族主义进步, 在法国,玛丽•勒庞支持率大涨。 英国脱欧的势力渗透在 每一个这样的社会中。

7:24

所以,我认为我们需要问的问题, 也就是我第二个问题, 我们应该如何合理应对? 对于所有关心自由、开放、包容的人, 我们迫切地需要一种新的憧憬, 更加包容,更加全球化, 更能将人们团结在一起。

7:47

要实现那种全球化的憧憬, 需要首先认识到全球化的正面影响。 经济学家的共识是 自由贸易、资本的移动, 人员自由的流动, 能给所有人带来利益。 国际关系学家一致认同 国际化伴随着相互依存, 并带来合作与和平。 但是全球化也会有副作用。 会有赢家也会有失败者。 就比方说移民, 我们知道移民可以给 宏观经济带来益处, 在所有的环境下几乎无一例外。 但我们也需要对此保持谨慎态度, 因为这也会带来负面影响, 不容忽视的就是,未受到良好教育的移民 会拉低社会中低收入人群的工资水平, 并且会促进房价的上涨。 这些还不能与它所能带来的好处相提并论, 但这也意味着, 更多的人无可避免会享受到它所带来的好处, 并且不得不承认这一点。

8:54

在2002年,前联合国秘书长科菲安南 在耶鲁大学做了一个演讲, 那个演讲的题目是全球化的包容性。 他正是在这篇演讲里奠定了那番陈述。 他讲到,我在这里复述一下, “全球化的大门将必须向所有人敞开, 这样才能带来安定。 偏执与无知 是反全球化和排外者的丑陋外表。”

9:30

这种全球化的想法在2008年时又短暂出现 在公众视线里, 那是一个讨论渐进式管理的会议, 很多欧盟领导人都出席了。 但这次会议只是针对2008年的经济危机, 在那之后这个想法便几乎消失得无影无踪。 全球化被用来支持新自由主义议程。 它被认为是精英议程的一部分, 并不会为所有人带来利益。 它更需要建立在一个比今天 更加包容的世界。

10:04

所以问题是, 我们怎样才能达到那个目标? 我们如何才能恰到好处地处理恐惧和抵触心理, 又不过分地 反对排外主义与民族主义? 这是我们所有人需要面对的问题。 另外,我认为, 身为一名社会科学家, 我可以提供一些着手思考的点。 我们的转型一定是物质 与思想上的同时转型, 我想给出四个转型的想法来抛砖引玉。

10:36

第一个与国民教育有关。 英国脱欧突显的是 公众看法与依靠经验判断现实的分歧。 有证据显示, 我们已经进入后真实社会。 证据与真理已经不再重要, 谎言与事实具有同等地位。 所以,我们怎样—

10:59

(掌声)

11:01

我们怎样才能在我们的自由民主社会中, 重新建立起对于真理和证据的尊重? 要做到这些,必先着手于教育, 但是,这首先需要人们意识到 巨大分歧的存在。

11:13

在2014年,民意调查专家Ipsos MORI 公开了一个关于移民问题的民意调查, 它指出当移民的数量上升的时候, 社会对于移民的担忧也会上升, 然而这并不能直接表明任何因果关系, 因为这跟数字没有很大的关系, 倒是政治和媒体宣传的作用更明显。 这份调查还指出了 民众获取了许多的错误信息, 对于移民也有本质上的误解。 举个例子,在英国, 有这种公众认为开设避难所的数量 比真正移民数量的比例要高, 公众还低估了受过教育的移民 在所有移民中 所占的比例。 所以我们要纠正这些误解, 这种认识与现实之间的差距, 正是全球化的关键所在。 但这些任务不能只交给学校, 虽然教育年轻一代很重要。 这需要成为一个终身计划, 从整个社会的角度,应该鼓励民众终身参与其中, 要调动公众的积极性。

12:25

第二个是机遇, 让不同的社会团体进行更多的交流。

12:32

(掌声)

12:36

有一件事让我感到很震惊, 纵观英国人对于移民的态度, 讽刺的是,那些 最包容移民的区域 有着最高的移民人口。 比如, 伦敦和东南地区有着最多的移民, 它们也是目前最包容开放的地区。 那些有着最低移民比例的地区 是最排外,对移民最不包容的。

13:06

所以我们需要鼓励交换计划。 我们需要确保那些 不能外出的老年人 可以上网。 我们需要鼓励,甚至从地方和国家层面来支持 更多的活动,更多的参与机会, 与更多我们不熟悉的人进行交流, 包括那些与我们意见相左的人们。

13:25

我想到的第三点是决定性的, 并且是最基础的, 我们需要确认所有人都能 享受到全球化的益处。 英国脱欧带来的经济问题是严峻的。 那些选择脱欧的人 却是那些通过欧洲贸易 得到大量实质性收益的人。 但是,问题在于那些得益的人 并没有意识到他们在其中收到了益处。 他们不相信自己真的 因此而得到了实质性的收获, 也能因此而更方便地 进行国际贸易和周游世界。

14:04

我主要致力于解决难民的问题, 我花了很多时间在一个观点上, 来劝导发展中国家, 鼓励它们团结难民, 我们不能仅仅为难民群体带来益处, 我们还需要解决地方社区的担忧。 但是深入了解它, 解决这个问题的方法是 我们需要按人口比例 为那些有着大量移民的地区 提供更好的教育、医疗、 社会福利, 以消除当地人口的顾虑。 但当我们在发展中国家 使用此方针的同时, 我们并没有在自己的国家中应用, 从而发展我们的社会。

14:49

如果我们真的将它重视起来, 让每个人都可以享受到经济利益, 我们的商业公司更需要 一个全球化的样本, 使他们意识到需要 带领别人一起发展。

15:04

第四个,也是我最后一个想法是, 我们需要更负责任的政治制度。 只有很少的社会科学的调查 提供了对于全球化不同看法的比较。 但是根据调查, 我们可以看到不同的国家在不同的时间段内, 对于一边是移民、 人口流动, 另一边是自由贸易的状况, 存在着巨大的分歧。 但是通过对那些数据进行研究, 我得到一种假设, 两极分化的社会对于全球化 抱有极不包容的态度。 比如过去的瑞典, 今天的加拿大一样, 有着一个集中化的政体, 左翼与右翼政党携手合作, 我们鼓励那些支持全球化的态度。 我们今天的世界处在恶劣的两极分化中, 政界两派有着恶劣的沟通环境, 并且有着巨大鸿沟以及分歧, 这需要彼此的沟通以及理解。 我们也许不会立刻达成共识, 但是我们至少要让政客以及媒体 采取一些行动, 让他们采取行动,彼此更加包容。

16:20

(掌声)

16:28

这些想法的可行性很高, 应该在具有包容性和共享的项目中被采纳。

16:37

我依然是一个英国人。 我依然是一个欧洲人。 我依然是一个全球公民。 对于我们这些认为 我们的身份并非相互排斥的人, 我们需要一起协作, 确保全球化可以让所有人都收益, 没有人掉队,或被忽视。 只有这样, 才可以带来真正的民主以及全球化。

17:06

谢谢。

17:08

(掌声)

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

提示
随便
看看

精彩
图片

帖子
导读
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表