Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
大臣，英国的外交目标500年来没有变过。为了创造一个分裂的欧洲，我们联荷兰制西班牙，联德国制法国，联法国和意大利制德国，联法国制德国和意大利，分而治之。您看，一贯效果很好，为什么要改变？
Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
这都是老皇历了吧？
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We 'had' to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
对，但也是现行政策。我们有必要去瓦解欧共体，因此我们一定得挤进去。以前我们试图从外部去瓦解它，但这样做不行。既然现在我们挤了进去，我们就有可能从中获得不少好处。我们现在已使德国人与法国人为敌，使法国人与意大利人为敌，使意大利人与荷兰人为敌……外交部对此感到万分欣喜。这跟以前没有什么两样。
Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
但我们都忠于大欧洲理念吧？
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.
[咯咯地笑]诚然，大臣。
Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
要是我们不信仰欧洲理想，为什么我们还推动增加欧共体成员国？
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
“这好比是联合国。会员国越多，你越是能挑起争论，联合国也就越来越变得一事无成，不起作用了。
Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
真是犬儒主义。
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
是的，我们把这叫做外交手腕。
[外交大臣解释拿破仑奖。]
Martin: Yes, it's a NATO award given once every five years: gold medal, big ceremony in Brussels, £100 000. The PM's the front runner this time. It's for the statesman who's made the biggest contribution to European unity.
拿破仑奖是北大西洋公约组织的一种奖金，每五年颁发一次。它包括一枚金质奖章、在布鲁塞尔举行的盛大仪式和十万英镑奖金。
Sir Humphrey: Since Napoleon, that is, if you don't count Hitler.
拿破仑以来 如果不算希特勒的话
[大臣试图从Sir Humphrey Appleby口中得到坦率的回答。]
Jim Hacker: When you give your evidence to the Think Tank, are you going to support my view that the Civil Service is over manned and feather-bedded, or not? Yes or no? Straight answer.
在你向智囊团提出的证词里，你是否打算支持我认为行政部门人事臃肿，无所事事的观点呢，回答我“是”或者“不是”，坦率地回答！
Sir Humphrey: Well Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage.
大臣，要是我被迫坦率地回答，那么我得说，就我们所能看到的情况而言，也就是从总体上来看，考虑到各方面的因素，从各部门的大致情况来看，那么归根结蒂，或许可以这么说，那就是，到头来，您会发现，就一般意义而言，明明白白地说，不管这样还是那样，其实并没有什么两样。
