Section A: English to Chinese (20 points)
Translate the underlined part of the following text into Chinese. Write your translation on your ANSWER SHEET.
All the signs are that Britain is caving in on the three issues in the first phase of the Brexit (British exit EU) talks. Theresa May was told she had to yield by next week to persuade the European Union summit on December 14th-15th to agree that there had been sufficient progress to begin talks on transition and a future trade framework. The prime minister has duly made big concessions on the rights of EU citizens in Britain and on the exit bill, perhaps enough to pass the test. There even seems to be some movement on the trickiest issue of all, how to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, making a December deal more likely—but still not certain.
(36)Yet behind the good new lurks a persistent and dangerous threat. The more that Mrs. May yields, the more some Brexiteers argue that Britain should leave on March 29th 2019 without any deal at all. Even if she wins agreement to move to phase two of the talks, the lure of no deal will not disappear. Brexiteers hate the concessions that are being made in phase one, especially over money. And trade buffs are united in predicting that the phase two could prove even more painful, with the EU sticking to a rigid line on trade terms.
(37)Even so, most people see Brexit with no deal as a disaster to be avoided at almost any cost. Yet the idea keeps returning, in two guises. The first is tactical. In any negotiation, it is said, one must be willing to walk away to get a good deal. Many Brexiteers fault David Cameron, Mrs. May’s predecessor, for making clear in his renegotiation of Britain’s EU membership before the referendum that he would campaign to stay no matter what Mrs. May still says no deal is better than a bad deal. Brexiteers were cock-a-hoop when the chancellor, Phillip Hammond, set aside £3bn ($3.6bn) for Brexit preparations, including for no deal, in his November budget.
(38)The second guise is the assertion that no deal would not really be so bad. Instead of pursuing the chimera of a generous free trade deal with a curmudgeonly EU, Britain could revert to trading on World Trade Organization terms (never mind that this would not be simple). David Davis, the Brexit secretary, says no deal actually means a “bare-bones” deal. On this basis, there is no serious risk that aircraft stop flying or nuclear materials are no longer imported. Rational people on both sides can see how damaging this would be to all, so they will prevent it.
Yet this idea of a “soft” no deal is not persuasive. A no-deal Brexit would damage other EU countries, but hit Britain harder. (39) And it defies political logic to think that a decision to walk out with no deal can be harmonious. It would mean not paying the exit bill. It would jeopardize the position of EU citizens in Britain. And it would dash hopes of the deep new partnership that Mrs. May says she wants. Amid the recriminations and bad blood, the EU would surely look to its own interests first.
Brexiteers often forget that the EU is a legal as much as a political construct. If Britain left with no deal and no transition, it would fall out of all EU organizations, from Euratom to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The European Court of Justice (ECJ) would lose jurisdiction. Even if all sides wanted Britain to stay in such bodies, it might not be legally possible.
(40) Oxford Economics has modelled the effects of Brexit with no deal and says that it would lop a cumulative 2% off Britain’s GDP by the end of 2020, equivalent to some £ 40bn. That is far bigger than the impact on other EU countries. Before the referendum, the Treasury forecast even bigger losses of output. Such numbers are especially daunting when annual growth forecasts for the next few years have just been trimmed to as little as 1.3%.
