Staring into the abyss; The future of Europe

　　As the euro-zone crisis spooks governments, opinions are diverging dramatically about what the union is for

　　WILL the European Union make it? The question would have sounded outlandish not long ago. Now even the project's greatest cheerleaders talk of a continent facing a "Bermuda triangle" of debt, demographic decline and lower growth。

　　As well as those chronic problems, the EU faces an acute crisis in its economic core, the 16 countries that use the single currency. Markets have lost faith that the euro zone's economies, weaker or stronger, will one day converge thanks to the discipline of sharing a single currency, which denies uncompetitive stragglers the quick fix of devaluation。

　　Yet the debate about how to save Europe's single currency from disintegration is stuck. It is stuck because the euro zone's dominant powers, France and Germany, agree on the need for greater harmonisation within the euro zone, but disagree about what to harmonise。

　　Germany thinks the euro must be saved by stricter rules on borrowing, spending and competitiveness, backed by quasi-automatic sanctions for governments that stray. These might include threats to freeze EU funds for poorer regions and EU mega-projects, and even the suspension of a country's voting rights in EU ministerial councils. It insists that economic co-ordination should involve all 27 members of the EU club, among whom there is a small majority for free-market liberalism and economic rigour; in the inner core alone, Germany fears, a small majority favour French dirigisme。

　　A "southern" camp headed by France wants something different: "European economic government" within an inner core of euro-zone members. Translated, that means politicians meddling in monetary policy and a system of redistribution from richer to poorer members, via cheaper borrowing for governments through common Eurobonds or outright fiscal transfers. Finally, figures close to the French government have murmured, euro-zone members should agree to some fiscal and social harmonisation: eg, curbing competition in corporate-tax rates or labour costs。

　　It is too soon to write off the EU. It remains the world's largest trading block. At its best, the European project is remarkably liberal: built around a single market of 27 rich and poor countries, its internal borders are far more porous to goods, capital and labour than any comparable trading area. It is an ambitious attempt to blunt the sharpest edges of globalisation, and make capitalism benign。

　　The problem is that the "European social model" has become, too often, a synonym for a very expensive way of doing things. It has also become an end in itself, with some EU …

　　從今年考研英語二的文章來看，閱讀部分文章均是摘自美國專業刊物，特別是The Economist(經濟學家)，如果平時沒有一定的閱讀積累，做起來還是比較困難的。所以對于后面的考生來說，在平時多閱讀一些這樣的期刊雜志，積累一些經濟、文化方面的專業詞匯還是很有必要的。

　　B部分

　　文章取自The Observer(觀察家報)，文章標題為UK doctors declare war on junk food(英醫學界號召打擊垃圾食品)。選的是大綱中第一種備選題型：多項對應。背景知識：英國兩家皇家醫學院的院長敦促政府對不健康食物的廣告和贊助宣傳進行限制。他們建議英國政府對垃圾食品征收“脂肪稅”，同時向兒童發出同“吸煙有害健康”同等級的垃圾食物食用警告。

　　UK doctors declare war on junk food

　　Leading doctors in Britain will today demand tough government action to curb the nation's addiction to unhealthy food, and so help halt spiralling rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease。

　　Senior medical figures want to stop fast-food outlets opening near schools, restrict the advertising of products high in fat, salt or sugar and limit sponsorship of sports events by fast-food producers such as McDonald's。

　　They also want "fat taxes" to be imposed on foods that cause the most dietary harm and introduce cigarette-style warnings for schoolchildren about the dangers of a bad diet。

　　Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said the consumption of unhealthy food should be seen to be just as damaging as smoking or binge drinking。

　　"Thirty years ago, it would have been inconceivable to have imagined a ban on smoking in the workplace or in pubs, and yet that is what we have now. Are we willing to be just as courageous in respect of obesity? I would suggest that we should be."。

　　Professor Stephenson's comments will reignite the debate over the role of regulation in tackling public health problems。

　　Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said last week that "no Government campaign or programme can force people to make healthy choices. We want to free business from the burden of regulation, but we don't want, in doing that, to sacrifice public health outcomes"。

　　Mr Lansley has alarmed health campaigners by saying manufacturers of potato crisps and sweets could play a central role in the Change4Life campaign, the centrepiece of government efforts to boost healthy eating and fitness。

　　He has also criticised chef Jamie Oliver's high-profile attempt to improve the quality of school lunches in England as an example of how "lecturing" people was not the best way to change their behaviour。

　　Professor Stephenson suggested potential curbs could include banning TV ads for foods high in fat, salt or sugar before the 9pm watershed and limiting them on billboards or in cinemas。

　　"If we were really bold, we might even begin to think of high-calorie fast food in the same way as cigarettes - by setting stringent limits on advertising, product placement and sponsorship of sports events."

　　Professor Dinesh Bhugra, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: "Some types of processed foods are harmful to the physical, and consequently mental, health of individuals。

　　"There ought to be serious consideration given to banning advertising of certain foods and certain processed foods and to levying tax on fatty, unhealthy foods."

　　He said school pupils needed to be told more about the effects of bad diet. He also urged councils to impose "fast-food free zones" around schools and hospitals。

　　Mr Lansley received unexpected support from Professor Stephenson and Professor Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, who said he was right to stress the importance of personal responsibility, as well as government action, in ending the country's dysfunctional relationship with food。

　　Both strongly criticised parents for setting their children a bad example by overeating, serving poor-quality food and exercising too little。

　　"Parents are role models for their children. It's crucial that they set the tone for what the children eat and their physical activity," said Professor Stephenson。

　　"The fact that one-third of our children are now overweight ... must mean their parents are allowing them to eat excessive amounts of food and not ensuring they take enough exercise."

　　Professor Field, a family doctor in Birmingham, said: "Too many parents show too little responsibility in the vital business of passing on good eating and drinking habits to their children."

　　A Health Department spokesperson said: "We need to create a new vision for public health where all of society works together to get healthy and live longer. This includes creating a new 'responsibility deal' with business, built on social responsibility, not state regulation."