英欧分家?这不是个问题 - FT速读测试

速读测试：英欧分家?这不是个问题

英国和欧盟就联盟预算、金融监管等问题的巨大分歧已经不是一天两天了。卡梅伦首相即将制定关于英国退出欧盟的全民公投计划，奥巴马政府表示对此非常担忧。本文作者FT专栏作家沃尔夫冈•明肖(Wolfgang Münchau)。

测试中可能遇到的词汇和知识：
perspective distortion	透视变形
opt-out	选择不参加、选择退出。英国前首相约翰·梅杰为FT撰文解释了当年他为什么拒绝英国加入欧元区：欧元是糟糕的政治考虑压倒了理性的经济权衡的产物。
Lord Brittan	英国前内政大臣布里坦勋爵曾担任欧盟委员会副主席，现任意大利总理马里奥·蒙蒂也曾在欧盟委员会任职。
usurp	篡夺，侵占
customs union	关税同盟。是经济一体化的形式之一，缔约国之间互相减让或取消关税，对缔约国之外的国家和地区实行共同的关税和外贸政策。著名的关税同盟有：建于1834年的德意志关税同盟，建于1958年的欧共体，南美的安第斯条约组织等。货币同盟是程度更深、条件要求更严格的一体化形式。
rump	残余；臀部

常见问题

阅读FT对你有什么好处？

对于全球的商业精英来说，阅读英国《金融时报》是每天必须进行的修炼。《金融时报》的文章以分析见长，逻辑严密，特别适合准备GRE和GMAT的考生。培生集团推出的PTE考试的阅读题，就是利用了FT的文章来做阅读理解。

阅读速度多快才够用？

在信息爆炸的今天，能够迅速地阅读和理解大量资料，已成为所有人必不可少的技能。对于准备参加各种英语测试的考生来讲，阅读速度可能是决定成绩的关键。要想在GRE和GMAT的考试中拿到高分，你的阅读速度至少要达到每分钟200字。

如何迫使自己提高阅读速度?

我们有一个自动滚屏的工具来帮助你提高速度。点击该按钮后，屏幕就开始滚动，迫使你改掉向回看的习惯，加快速度。默认为每分钟140字（朗读速度）。随着你的技能提升，你可以挑战更高的速度，直到达到1000。

小字速度：+ -

阅读以下文章

<b>It does not really matter if Britain leaves</b>
Should the UK remain at the heart of Europe?
If you believe that this is where the UK is actually located, then the answer may well be yes. But then you would either look at it from a very long distance – the US state department for example – or suffer from perspective distortion.
Looking at this from inside the EU, the UK left the heart of Europe 20 years ago when John Major negotiated the opt-out from the euro. Tony Blair confirmed that position when his government took the opt-out in the later 1990s. It is completely unsurprising that there is now a debate inside the UK about membership. People are asking themselves a perfectly logical question: since we are not in the eurozone, nor likely ever to become a member, what is the point?
In macroeconomic terms, EU membership is virtually irrelevant for a member state that is simultaneously large and not in the eurozone. The EU budget is tiny, and free trade and free capital movement would continue under any conceivable scenario. There may be reasons to stay in the EU, but whatever they are, they are not macroeconomic.
If you go one level down – to the level of individual industries, including finance – the impact of EU membership is more subtle. But here it is important to take a realistic look at how the EU itself will develop in the next 10 years, and not romanticise the liberal, free-trade EU of the past, when Mario Monti or Lord Brittan were still European commissioners.
Over the next 10 years, the EU will mostly deal with the institutional consequences of the eurozone crisis, deepen eurozone integration, and change European treaties to make that possible.
In the agreement on banking union, the UK has secured a protection from being outvoted on matters relating to bank supervision. But the eurozone will find a way to usurp this and other single-market powers. A hint of that recently came from Christian Noyer, governor of the Bank of France, when he said the eurozone would not allow the City of London to dominate euro-related securities trading forever.
I doubt that EU membership could ultimately protect the UK from an inevitable eurozone power grab. A single market in a single-currency regime is a very different beast than a single market in a customs union. In the first category the purpose is adjustment of wages and prices; in the second it is free trade. Italy needs a single European labour market. The UK does not.
What, then, would the UK leave behind by leaving the EU? Membership confers a series of fundamental freedoms – of movement of labour, goods and services and capital. Member states are part of a customs union and, of course, an unfinished single-market project, one that has stalled long before it has been completed. Britain may be able to maintain several of these benefits: not the customs union, but most of the rest.
The common foreign and security policy has not lived up to the exaggerated expectations of the past decade. Even here, it may be possible, and in everybody’s best interest, to maintain some form of engagement and co-operation. But is it important enough to make a compelling case for continued membership?
What about the UK beneficiaries of EU funds – universities, for example? As a net contributor to the EU’s budget, the UK would be able to compensate any institution, and still have some money left.
A genuine complication would be a prior decision by Scotland to leave the UK in a referendum that will most likely take place next year. Any hypothetical UK referendum would happen afterwards. If Scotland were to vote for independence, the situation would get messy. The legal services of all the three main EU institutions believe that by formally leaving an existing member state, a region would also formally exit the EU. Like any European country, Scotland would have the right to reapply, but any one member state could veto a Scottish application. I cannot currently see the required unanimity for admitting an independent Scottish state, not when other countries, such as Spain, are also fighting regional nationalism.
The two straightforward solutions would be: Scotland leaving the UK, and both the rump-UK and Scotland also leaving the EU. Or Scotland staying inside the UK, and the UK staying inside the EU. But we could end up with England inside and Scotland outside, or vice versa. In the last two cases, England and Scotland would have to re-erect a customs border between them – which would be absurd.
The best reason to stay in the EU is not a pretence to be in the heart of Europe, but to keep things simple, and maybe to have the flexibility to change one’s mind about the euro later on – if the political or economic situation were to change. But in that case, the UK could always be readmitted, so even that is not a compelling argument.
My overall conclusion is that the discussion about EU membership is about barely visible shades of grey.

选择正确答案

In the first paragraph, the writer asks, "Should the UK remain at the heart of Europe?"
Do you remember his answer?

Good!
C是正确的。
作者在第二段中说如果你认为英国处在欧洲地理的中心的话（实际上不是），那么英国就应该“留在欧洲的核心位置”。但是认为英国处在欧洲的中心位置，要么是从美国国务院的角度来看的（英国处在美欧之间的核心位置），要么就是被透视变形欺骗了自己的眼睛——英国该不该离开欧洲的核心位置不是个问题，因为英国本来就不在核心位置。

Definitely yes.
Definitely no.
It is a distorted statement.
US state department thinks not.

选择正确答案

Which of the following is not true about UK-EU relations?

Good!
ACD是正确的。也许有支持英国留在欧盟的理由，但是they are not macroeconomic，所以A正确。作者在两个地方强调说free trade and free capital movement would continue under any conceivable scenario，所以B不正确。
C正确，尤其在涉及金融监管的问题上，英国独特的金融地位常常受到欧陆国家的挑战。D是国际金融中的重要概念：单一货币区要求成员国之间生产力水平接近、劳动资本商品自由流动，以及财政统一。
梅杰首相明确指出，他认为欧盟并未达到充分的条件，搞单一货币问题很多：《英国为什么拒绝欧元》

There is no macroeconomic reason for the UK to stay in the EU.
UK can only maintain free movement of labour, goods and capital within EU.
Deepening eurozone integration might take away some UK sovereignty.
A single-currency regime requires more than a customs union.

选择正确答案

Which of the following can support the title "It does not really matter if Britain leaves"?

Good!
C是正确答案。A苏格兰问题虽然比较复杂，但是也不会对英国离开欧盟造成潜在的损失。BD都与事实相反：不与欧盟分家的最好的理由不是这个，而是to keep things simple, and maybe to have the flexibility to change one’s mind about the euro later on。
另外，英国是欧盟预算的净贡献国。

Scotland's referendum for independence is something that matters.
The best reason to stay in the EU is a pretence to be in the heart of Europe.
Common foreign and security policy is not as wonderful as expected.
UK is a net beneficiary to the EU's budget.

选择正确答案

Why "the situation would get messy" "if Scotland were to vote for independence"?

Good!
A是正确答案。B论点并未得到支持；C是即便苏格兰独立实现（公投独立只是起步）之后，也最不大可能出现的情况——英国和苏格兰一者在欧盟内，一者在外。 D说法正确但是与题干无关。
阅读更多：
《美国警告英国勿考虑退出欧盟》
金融英语速读：英国与西班牙的独立之禁果

An independent Scotland would have to apply for EU membership which UK has the right to veto on.
It could stir up Catalonia's independence movement.
The rump-UK would have to negotiate a customs border with Scotland.
Any hypothetical UK referendum would happen afterwards.

放松与总结

您答对题目数: 0/5 FT中文网用户平均WPM: 3
我们为金融英语速读的用户创建了论坛，大家可以在这里相互交流经验，帮我们把这个栏目办得更好。

上一测试：3.0版的中国？

下一测试：爱枪者，美国选民

讨论和交流请发表和本次测试相关的内容

<<后退

开始>>

您的正确率太低，在目前这个阶段，对你来说最重要的是提高英文水平和金融专业水平，而不是速度。请您点击后退仔细查看您答错的题目，并和原文对照。对原文中所有不懂的句子和知识点，也请一一查明。建议您：
1. 在进行下一次训练的时候，将滚屏速度保持在100以下。
2. 您可以找一些有声读物，如《经济学人》的audio edition，帮助你提高英文水平。

看得出你是非常认真来进行这次训练的，如果你坚持的话，你会获得非常大的提高。目前你的阅读速度偏低，可能是因为英文不是你的母语。不过，请不要放慢阅读速度。研究表明，阅读速度越快的人，其理解的正确率反而越高。因此，您可以同时提高您的阅读速度和理解能力。给你一点建议：
1. 一定要改掉默念的习惯
2. 不要一个词一个词的看，要学会把一个语义群当作一个整体来看。比如“an emergency $180bn injection of dollar”这个语义群，你要学会把他当作一个整体来看。
3. 看DVD的时候，切换到英文字幕。

用正常语速来朗读一篇文章，平均速度是每分钟140词。这说明你的阅读速度比朗读还要慢。建议您：1. 每一段的第一句话往往是最重要的。
2. “速读”最忌讳的就是“读”，不要一边看一边默念。
3. 在下一个训练中将滚屏速度设为140，迫使自己不能回头去看已经读过的部分。

您的阅读速度已经超过了正常语速，说明你已经开始有些速读的感觉了。美国大学生的最低阅读速度为每分钟250词，加把劲你就可以赶上了。建议您：
1. 养成习惯，读过的部分不要回头去看，这样会影响速读。
2. 加强“扫描”的训练，让自己的眼睛能“一目一行”。

您的阅读速度已经达到了美国大学生的水平，可喜可贺。不过作为金融从业人员，每天需要阅读数不清的中英文研究报告、公司年报、报刊杂志等，您还需要向每分钟350字进军。建议您：
1. 加强“扫描”的训练，让自己的眼睛能“一目两行”。
2. 对中英文的数字，尤其是大数字(million, billion)的转换进行总结和练习。

厉害，您的阅读速度已经超过了美国大学生的水平。不过，要成为巴菲特那样的金融专家，您需要锻炼出“一目十行”的火眼金睛。建议您在每次的训练中注意三个要点：
1. 您已经学会了将文章分成语义群，而非词来阅读，现在，你需要扩大每一个语义群中的词数。
2. 加快阅读每个语义群的速度。
3. 看过的内容尽量不要回看。

这就是传说中的“一目十行”吗？难以置信！

世界纪录才每分钟416,250字，居然被你破了！无语...

讨论和交流 请发表和本次测试相关的内容

讨论和交流请发表和本次测试相关的内容