natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Daniel Mareels (Arbejdsgivergruppen – BE)
Daniel Mareels (Employers' Group – BE)
Daniel Mareels (Arbejdsgivergruppen – BE)
Daniel Mareels (Employers– BE)
Daniel MAREELS (BE-I)
Daniel MAREELS (BE-I)
Daniel Mareels (BE-I)
Mareels (BE-I)
Daniel Mareels (BE-I)
Mr Daniel Mareels (BE-I)
Daniel Mareels (BE-I)
Mr Mareels (BE-I)
Daniel Mareels (BE-I)
Mr Mareels Daniel (BE-I)
Daniel Mareels (BE‑I)
Daniel Mareels (BE-I)
Daniel Mareels (BE‑I)
Mr Mareels (BE-I)
Daniel Mareels (for ordføreren)
Mr Daniel Mareels (for the rapporteur)
Daniel Mareels var imod kompromisforslaget, der efterfølgende i henhold til forretningsordenens artikel 51, stk. 6, blev sat under afstemning og godkendt af forsamlingen.
According to article 51, paragraph 6 of the Rules of Procedure, the compromise was then put to the vote and accepted by the assembly.
Daniel Pujazón (for Gruppe I)
Mr Daniel Pujazon (for Group I)
Daniel Retureau
Garcia Alonso
Daniel Retureau
Little
Daniel RETUREAU
Mr Daniel Retureau
Daniel Retureau
Mr Retureau
Daniel Retureau
Mr Retureau
Daniel Retureau
RETUREAU
Daniel Retureau
Retureau, Daniel
Daniel Retureau  fremlagde sine argumenter imod kompromisset, og derefter vedtog forsamlingen kompromisset med 59 stemmer for, 27 imod og 24 hverken eller imod.
Mr Retureau presented his arguments against the compromise and thereafter the Assembly adopted the compromise by 59 to 27, with 24 abstentions.
Daniel Retureau  håbede, at denne meddelelse var et første skridt imod udarbejdelsen af egentlige VSA-indikatorer og kontrolprocedurer, således at social ansvarlighed kunne blive taget alvorligt og ikke kun blive betragtet som et kommercielt propagandainstrument.
Mr Retureau hoped that the Communication was a first step in the development of proper CSR indicators and verification procedures, enabling CSR to be taken seriously rather than to be seen as a tool of commercial propaganda.
Daniel Retureau  var ikke dybt uenig, men krævede en præcisering i punkt 6.2.4, at det ikke er EØSU, som skal vurdere landenes administrative fremgangsmåder, og at det er op til Kommissionen at foretage en "benchmarking" i den forbindelse.
Mr Retureau had no substantive reservations, but asked for a clarification in paragraph 6.2.4 that it was not the EESC's responsibility to assess national practices and that it fell to the European Commission to organise "benchmarking" in this area.
Daniel Retureau (art. 54 - An Le Nouail)
Retureau (Rule 54 - Le Nouail)
Daniel Retureau (art. 62 - Georges Liarokapis)
RETUREAU (Rule 62 for Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (art. 62 - Gérard Dantin)
Mr Retureau (Rule 62 - Dantin) (FR-II)
Daniel Retureau (art. 62 for Liarokapis) (FR-II)
RETUREAU (Rule 62 – Liarokapis) (FR-II)
Daniel Retureau (art. 62 – Claude Cambus)
Retureau (Rule 62 – Cambus)
Daniel Retureau (F - II)
Mr Retureau (F-II)
Daniel Retureau (F-II)
Mr Retureau (F - II)
Daniel Retureau (F-II)
Mr Retureau (F-II)
Daniel Retureau (F-II)
Mr Retureau (Group II - F)
Daniel Retureau (F-II)
Mr Retureau (F - II)
Daniel Retureau (F-II)
Retureau (F-II)
Daniel Retureau (F-II)
Retureau (FR-II)
Daniel Retureau (F-II) (art. 54 - An Le Nouail)
Mr Retureau (F - II) (Rule 54 - Ms Le Nouail)
Daniel Retureau (F-II) (art. 54 - An Le Nouail)
Mr Retureau (F-II) (Mrs Le Nouail - Rule 54 RP)
Daniel Retureau (F-II) (art. 54 - Gérard Dantin)
Mr Retureau (F-II) (Rule 54 - Dantin)
Daniel Retureau (F-II) (art. 54 - Joël Decaillon)
Retureau (Rule 54 - Decaillon)(F-II)
Daniel Retureau (F-II) (art. 54 – for An Le Nouail)
Retureau (F-II) (Rule 54 - Le Nouail)
Daniel Retureau (F-II) (art. 62 - Claude Cambus)
Mr Retureau (F-II) (Rule 62 - Cambus)
Daniel Retureau (for Georges Liarokapis, art. 62)
Mr Retureau (Rule 62 – Mr Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (for Gruppe II)
Daniel Retureau (for Group II)
Daniel Retureau (for Gruppe II)
Mr Retureau (for Group II)
Daniel Retureau (for Joël Decaillon, art. 54) (ordfører)
Retureau (Rule 54 - Decaillon)
Daniel Retureau (for ordføreren)
Daniel Retureau (for the rapporteur)
Daniel Retureau (for ordføreren)
Mr Daniel Retureau (for the rapporteur)
Daniel Retureau (for ordføreren)
Mr Retureau (for the rapporteur)
Daniel Retureau (formand)
Retureau (president)
Daniel Retureau (FR - II)
Mr Retureau (FR-II)
Daniel Retureau (FR ‑ II)
Mr Retureau (FR – II)
Daniel Retureau (FR – II)
Mr Retureau (FR-II)
Daniel Retureau (FR – II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62 for Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II)
Mr Retureau  (FR-II)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II)
Mr Retureau (FR - II)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II)
Mr Retureau (FR-II)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II)
Mr Retureau (FR–II)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II)
Mr Retureau (II-FR)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II)
Retureau (FR – II)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II)
Retureau (FR-II)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II)
Retureau (II-FR)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Cambus)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62 – Mr Cambus)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Cambus)
Retureau (FR - II) (Rule 62-Mr Cambus)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Claude Cambus)
Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62 – Cambus)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Claude Cambus)
Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62 – Cambus)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – for Claude Cambus)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62, Mr Cambus)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Mr Retureau (FR – II) (Rule 62 - Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62 - Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (rule 62 - Mr Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62 – Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62-Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Mr Retureau (Rule 62 – Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62 – Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Retureau (II-FR) (Rule 62 - Mr Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62, for Claude Cambus)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62 – Mr Cambus)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (Artikel 62 - Claude Cambus)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62 - Cambus)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (for Claude Cambus, art. 62)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Mr Cambus, Rule 62)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (for Claude Cambus – art. 62)
Mr Retureau (FR–II)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (for Georges Liarokapis, art. 62)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62 – Mr Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (for Liarokapis – art. 62)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62-Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (for Liarokapis, art. 62)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62 - Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) (for Liarokapis, art. 62)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62 – Mr Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II) - art. 62 Cambus
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (Rule 62-Cambus)
Daniel Retureau (FR‑II)
Daniel Retureau (FR-II)
Daniel Retureau (FR–II)
Mr Retureau (FR–II)
Daniel Retureau (FR–II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Mr Retureau (FR-II) (art. 62 – Liarokapis)
Daniel Retureau (F–II) (for Claude Cambus art.62)
Mr Retureau (F-II) (Rule 62 - Cambus)
Daniel Retureau (F–II) (for Claude Cambus, art. 62)
Mr Retureau (F–II) (Rule 62–Mr Cambus)
Daniel Retureau (Gr.
D. Retureau (Gr.
Daniel Retureau (Gr.
Mr Retureau (Gr.
Daniel Retureau (Gruppe II's ekspert)
Mr Daniel Retureau – Group II expert
Daniel Retureau (Gruppe II) tog ordet og roste kvaliteten af informationsrapporten.
Mr Retureau (Group II) took the floor and praised the quality of the information report.
Daniel Retureau (Gruppe II, F)
D. Retureau (GR I-F)
Daniel Retureau (II-F)
Retureau (II-F)
Daniel Retureau (II-FR)
Retureau (II–FR)
Daniel Retureau (II–FR))
Mr Retureau (II-FR)
Daniel Retureau (ordfører)
Mr Retureau (rapporteur)
Daniel Retureau (ordfører)
RETUREAU - Rapporteur
Daniel Retureau (ordfører) - artikel 54: Gérard Dantin
Retureau (rapporteur) - Rule 54 - Dantin)
Daniel Retureau (sammen med An Le Nouail og Giacomina Cassina) foreslog følgende tilføjet sidst i punktummet:
Mr Retureau (together with Mrs Le Nouail and Mrs Cassina) proposed to add at the end:
Daniel Retureau (sammen med An Le Nouail og Giacomina Cassina) foreslog tilføjelse af følgende tekst sidst i andet punktum:
Mr Retureau (together with Mrs Le Nouail and Mrs Cassina) proposed to add the following at the end of the sentence:
Daniel Retureau advarede også Kommissionen om, at det er nødvendigt alvorligt at overveje de eventuelle (og potentielt negative) juridiske og/eller politiske følgevirkninger af den foreslåede ophævelse af forordning 954/79.
Mr Daniel Retureau also warned the Commission that serious consideration needs to be given to any possible (and potentially adverse) legal and/or political repercussions the proposed repeal of Regulation 954/79 might entail.
Daniel Retureau afgav derefter en stemmeerklæring, hvori han forklarede, at han hverken stemte for eller imod, da formuleringen i punkt 3.6.1 (også i den franske version) efter hans opfattelse ikke var blevet afklaret.
Mr Retureau then made a declaration of vote, explaining that he had abstained, as in his view the question of the very strong wording of point 3.6.1 (also in the French version of the text) had not been clarified.
Daniel Retureau afgav en stemmeforklaring.
Mr Retureau made a voting statement.
Daniel Retureau anførte, at landmændene burde tage presset fra forbrugerne med i billedet, og at der burde informeres mere om de spørgsmål, som udtalelsen kommenterede på fortrinlig vis.
Mr Retureau mentioned that farmers should take into account the consumers' pressure and that greater publicity should be given to such issues which the Opinion elaborated in a remarkable way.
Daniel Retureau anmodede om en ændring, nemlig at punkt 5.2 a) blev flyttet til konklusionerne.
Mr Retureau asked for one modification: the move of the point 5.2 a) to the Conclusions.
Daniel Retureau bad om ordet og gjorde rede for, hvorfor ændringsforslaget efter hans mening gjorde hverken fra eller til.
Mr Retureau asked to be given the floor and explained why, in his view, the amendment would make no difference at all.
Daniel Retureau beklagede, at dette vigtige spørgsmål ikke blev debatteret mere grundigt og nævnte, at han havde til hensigt at fremsætte ændringsforslag.
Mr Retureau, who regretted the lack of proper debate on this important question, and said he would be tabling some amendments;
Daniel Retureau beklagede, at udtalelsen ikke var fuldstændigt afbalanceret og at nogle af standpunkterne var uklare.
Mr Retureau regretted that the opinion was not completely balanced and that there was a lack of clarity in some of the positions taken.
Daniel Retureau bemærkede, at EU ikke kan anlægge et europæisk perspektiv på Kina, og at man bør tilstræbe større objektivitet.
Mr Retureau commented that the EU could not impose a European vision on China and that more objectivity would be advisable.
Daniel Retureau bemærkede, at han anså denne stadig tilbagevendende sammenhæng mellem forbrugerinteresser og landbrugspriser for helt urimelig.
Mr Retureau wished to make it known that he regarded this constantly recurring link between consumers' interests and farm prices as totally absurd.
Daniel Retureau bifaldt udtalelsen og henledte især opmærksomheden på afsnittene om "den sociale dialog", "intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder" og "forskning på universiteter og i industrien".
Mr Retureau drew members’ attention to the sections on social dialogue, intellectual property and university and industrial research, which he supported.
Daniel Retureau bifaldt udtalelsen, men bemærkede, at der fandtes enkelte redaktionelle/oversættelsesmæssige problemer i punkterne 3.3.3.1 og 6.4.
Mr Retureau welcomed the opinion, but noted some drafting/translation problems in points 3.3.3.1 and 6.4.
Daniel Retureau deltog i den generelle debat, hvor han roste ordføreren for udtalelsen og gav ham ret i, at der var behov for at forenkle lovgivningen.
During the general debate, Mr Retureau congratulated the rapporteur on his document and endorsed his views on the need to simplify legislation.
Daniel Retureau erklærede med hensyn til afstemningen, at han med den komplicerede samling af tekster, der var til behandling, ikke havde følt sig i stand til at stemme, fordi han ikke havde overblik over den tekst, der skulle vedtages.
Concerning the vote, Mr Retureau declared that he had felt unable to vote on the draft opinion, as the complicated combination of documents under discussion had made it impossible for him to establish the exact text which was to be adopted.
Daniel Retureau erklærede, at forslaget følger nyere tids historiske udvikling inden for grundlæggende menneskelige, borgerlige og politiske rettigheder, og at udvalget bør gå forrest i kampen om at skabe socialt fremskridt.
Mr Retureau declared that the proposal corresponded to contemporary historical developments in favour of basic human, civic and political rights, and that it was appropriate for the Committee to be in the vanguard of such a movement for social progress.
Daniel Retureau erklærede, at han gik ind for de to foregående udtalelser, men på grund af en teknisk fejl var hans stemme i begge tilfælde blevet registreret som en stemme imod.
Mr Retureau said that he was in favour of the two previous opinions, but that owing to a technical error he had been recorded as voting against.
Daniel Retureau erklærede, at han havde stemt for, men han ønskede dog at påpege, at visse af de foreslåede initiativudtalelser berørte emner, som ØSU burde være blevet hørt om, og dette forhold kritiserede han Kommission for.
Mr Retureau announced that he had voted in favour, but wished to point out that some of the proposed own-initiative opinions dealt with issues which ought to have been referred to the Committee for an opinion, for which he criticised the Commission.
Daniel Retureau erklærede, at han havde stemt hverken for eller imod, fordi han mente, at ordføreren ikke havde givet en tilfredsstillende forklaring på, hvorfor han taler om "stor mangel på forståelse hos lærere".
Mr Retureau said that he had abstained because he felt that the rapporteur had not sufficiently explained the reason for the reference to an "unacceptable lack of awareness and appreciation of the value of innovation" on the part of teachers.
Daniel Retureau fik ordet til et procedureindlæg og fremførte, at den rækkefølge, som ændringsforslagene vedrørende stk. 4 var blevet sat til afstemning efter, var velbegrundet.
Mr Retureau moved a procedural motion, citing the sound reasoning behind the order in which the amendments concerning Rule 50(4) were put to the vote.
Daniel Retureau forelagde et procedurespørgsmål, idet han spurgte Richard Adams, om dennes ændringsforslag kunne betragtes som en modudtalelse.
Mr Retureau spoke about the procedure, asking Mr Adams if the amendments that he had submitted could be considered as a counter-opinion.
Daniel Retureau forelagde udtalelsen.
Mr Retureau presented the opinion.
Daniel Retureau foreslog en ny ordlyd til punkt 3.3.2 (ændringsforslag 1).
Mr Retureau proposed that point 3.3.2 (amendment 1) be rephrased.
Daniel Retureau foreslog en ændring af andet punktum i punkt 6.1 (ændringsforslag 2).
Mr Retureau proposed an amendment to the second sentence of point 6.1 (amendment 2).
Daniel Retureau foreslog, at man skelnede mellem den sociale og den civile dialog og enedes om et kompromisændringsforslag med følgende ordlyd "principperne for den sociale dialog og for den civile dialog".
Mr Retureau proposed to distinguish between social and civil dialogue and to agree on compromise amendments which state "the principles of social dialogue and those of civil dialogue".
Daniel Retureau foreslog, at udtalelsens punkt 3.4.4.1 blev slettet.
Mr Retureau proposed that point 3.4.4.1 should be deleted from the opinion.
Daniel Retureau forklarede kort den grundlæggende idé med det tredje ændringsforslag.
Mr Retureau briefly explained the principle idea of the third amendment.
Daniel Retureau fremlagde følgende ændringsforslag:
Mr Retureau tabled the following amendment:
Daniel Retureau fremlagde Gruppe II's ændringsforslag.
Mr Retureau presented the amendments on behalf of Group II.
Daniel Retureau fremlagde skriftlige ændringsforslag (til punkterne 3.6, 4.2.1, 4.5 og 5.3), som blev vedtaget.
Written amendments were tabled by Mr Retureau to points 3.6, 4.2.1, 4.5 and 5.3; all of the proposed amendments were adopted.
Daniel Retureau fremlagde udtalelsen, som blev vedtaget med 104 stemmer for og 1 hverken for eller imod.
The draft opinion was presented by Mr Retureau and adopted with 104 votes in favour and one abstention.
Daniel Retureau fremlagde udtalelsen, som blev vedtaget med 95 stemmer for og 4 hverken for eller imod.
The draft opinion was presented by Mr Retureau and adopted with 95 votes in favour and four abstentions.
Daniel RETUREAU fremsatte følgende ændringsforslag:
Mr Retureau tabled the following amendment:
Daniel Retureau gav sin fulde tilslutning til retningslinjerne i udtalelsen, men advarede imod, at man blander sig i tredjelandes indenrigspolitik.
Mr Retureau agreed entirely with the views expressed in the opinion and its concern not to interfere in the politics of third countries.
Daniel Retureau gik imod det oprindelige ændringsforslag, da en stor del af produktionen skal sælges til under kostprisen, og landmændene derfor skal sikres en rimelig pris eller indkomst gennem støtte.
Mr Retureau spoke against the original amendment, saying that since much of the produce has to be sold below-cost, a reasonable price, or income, has to be guaranteed to farmers through subsidies.
Daniel Retureau gik imod det.
Mr Retureau spoke against.
Daniel Retureau gik imod ændringsforslaget med præcist den samme begrundelse som for ændringsforslag 12 under punkt 3.1.
Mr Retureau spoke against the amendment, saying the arguments were exactly the same as for amendment 12 in point 3.1.
Daniel Retureau gik imod ændringsforslaget, da det ifølge ham fuldstændigt ville ændre teksten ved at ”hjælpe” forbrugerne i stedet for at ”indlede en dialog” med dem.
Mr Retureau spoke against the amendment, saying that the amendment would change the text completely by asking for "assistance" for consumers instead of "dialogue" with consumers.
Daniel Retureau gik imod ændringsforslaget, da det ikke tilvejebringer nogen løsning på problemet med adgang.
Mr Retureau spoke against the amendment, saying that it did not provide any element on how to solve the problem of access.
Daniel Retureau gik imod ændringsforslaget, da salg med tab er et meget almindeligt fænomen, der lægger et stort pres på landmændene.
Mr Retureau spoke against the amendment, saying that sell at a loss is a very common phenomenon, which puts a lot of pressure on farmers.
Daniel Retureau gik imod ændringsforslaget.
Mr Retureau opposed the amendment.
Daniel RETUREAU gjorde endvidere opmærksom på, at spørgsmålet om tobaksmisbrug ikke burde behandles i forbindelse med en diskussion om en udtalelse om den fælles tobaksmarkedsordning.
Mr Retureau also felt that a debate on an opinion on the common market organization for tobacco was not the right moment to discuss smoking.
Daniel Retureau gjorde opmærksom på, at charteret gør en ende på den hidtidige skelnen mellem de økonomiske og sociale rettigheder på den ene side og de civile, politiske og kulturelle rettigheder på den anden side, hvilket i sig selv udgør en forfatningsmæssig revolution.
Mr Retureau drew attention to the fact that the Charter ended the distinction between economic and social rights on the one hand, and civil, political and cultural rights on the other, which in itself represented something of a constitutional revolution.
Daniel Retureau har udarbejdet en omfattende udtalelse1 om denne meddelelse.
Mr Retureau prepared a comprehensive opinion1 in response to the Communication.
Daniel Retureau havde indvendinger mod ændringsforslaget og var navnlig forbeholden over for begrebet ”formel tilslutning”.
Mr Retureau opposed the amendment, in particular by criticising use of the term "formal endorsement".
Daniel Retureau henledte opmærksomheden på, at informationsrapporten blev udarbejdet på et vanskeligt tidspunkt for så vidt angår oplysninger om Lissabontraktaten.
Mr Retureau pointed out that the information report had been drawn up at a difficult time from the point of view of information about the Lisbon Treaty.
Daniel Retureau henviste til grundforskningens vigtige rolle, som var truet i nogle lande, og foretrak derfor en afsvækkelse af ordlyden.
Mr Retureau referred to the important role of basic research, the very existence of which was threatened in some countries, and therefore wished for the wording to be toned down.
Daniel Retureau holdt fast ved, at teksten var for kritisk og negativ i punkt 4.15.
Mr Retureau reiterated his view that the wording was too critical and negative in point 4.15.
Daniel Retureau kom ind på begrebet "sikker operatør".
Mr Retureau referred to the issue of the concept of "secure operator".
Daniel Retureau kom ind på spørgsmålet om IT-udstyr i ØSU og sagde mere specifikt, at det ikke var muligt at lagre information fra Intranet på diskette, når der var tale om at indhente den nødvendige information til udarbejdelse af udtalelser.
Mr Retureau referred to the issue of IT equipment in the Committee and more specifically, to the fact that it was not possible to save to diskette information obtained on the Intranet needed for drawing up opinions.
Daniel Retureau konstaterede, at der naturligvis kan være utilfredshed med forfatningstraktaten på visse punkter, navnlig bestemmelserne om fællesskabspolitikkerne.
Mr Retureau said that there clearly were reasons for dissatisfaction with the Constitutional Treaty, particularly with regard to the provisions on Community policies.
Daniel Retureau kritiserede modudtalelsen.
Mr Retureau critisised the counter opinion.
Daniel Retureau kunne godt acceptere en henvisning til den pågældende udtalelse, der var under udarbejdelse, men kunne ikke gå med til, at resten af punktet blev slettet.
Mr Retureau did not oppose the reference to the opinion being drawn up but he was opposed to the deletion of the rest of the paragraph.
Daniel Retureau kunne ikke acceptere Sture Lindmarks forslag.
Mr Retureau did not accept the proposal of Mr Lindmark.
Daniel Retureau kunne ikke acceptere ændringsforslaget.
Mr Retureau opposed the amendment.
Daniel Retureau kunne ikke acceptere, at kapitel 2.3 blev behandlet under ét.
Mr Retureau said he could not accept that chapter 2.3 be dealt with as one.
Daniel Retureau lykønskede ordføreren med en udtalelse, som han mente var meget konkret.
Mr Retureau congratulated the rapporteur on an opinion which he regarded as very practical.
Daniel Retureau mente, at "blød lovgivning" og "åben koordination" ikke kan erstatte egentlig lovgivning, om end det kan være nyttigt i forbindelse med fastlæggelse af retningslinjer og  bevidstgørende foranstaltninger.
Mr Retureau argued that "soft law" and "open coordination", while useful in setting guidelines and in raising awareness, could not be a substitute for proper regulation.
Daniel Retureau mente, at der burde indføres obligatorisk BSE-kontrol, og han tilføjede, at han ville tage dette spørgsmål op igen på plenum.
Mr RETUREAU mentioned that compulsory BSE testing should be introduced and that he plans to re-open this issue during the discussion before the Plenary.
Daniel Retureau mente, at man i betragtning af emnets vigtighed ikke måtte være alt for restriktiv med taletiden.
Mr Retureau suggested that, in view of the importance of the subject, the time allotted for discussion not be too restrictive.
Daniel Retureau mente, at ordføreren havde lagt sig i selen for at tage hensyn til kommentarerne, men bebudede et ændringsforslag med kritik af verdenshandelsorganisationen for dens tackling af banansagen.
Mr Retureau thought the rapporteur had done his best to take account of comments, and announced an amendment criticising the World Trade Organisation for its approach to the banana question.
Daniel Retureau mente, at udtalelsen var af stor betydning og blandede videnskab med et forsigtigt, men konstruktivt budskab om håb og fremskridt.
Mr Retureau considered the opinion to be of major importance, blending science with a prudent but constructive message of hope and progress.