natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvis ingen gør indsigelser, betragter jeg det som god kendt.
Are there any comments?
Schwalba-Hoth (ARC). - (DE) Fru formand, jeg har et spørgsmål til side 1 i protokollen og mere præcist til det afsnit, der beskæftiger sig med måling af radio aktivitetsniveauet i klimaanlæggenes filtre.
Mr Schwalba-Hoth (ARC). — (DE) Madam Presi dent, I have a question on page 1 of the minutes, on the part dealing with the measurement of radioactivity in our air-conditioning filters.
Deres kolleger i forsædet lovede i går og i forgårs, at radioaktiviteten for det første ville blive målt, at disse vær dier for det andet ville blive meddelt Parlamentet, og at filtrene for det tredje ville blive udskiftet.
Your two colleagues in the President's Chair yesterday and the day before yesterday agreed, firstly, that radioactivity would be measured, secondly, that the plenary would be notified of the readings and, thirdly, that the filters would be changed.
I Tysk land anbefales det for nærværende offentlige køkkener, bilejere og folk, der har klimaanlæg, at udskifte filtrene.
In Germany at present, kitchen workers, car owners and air-conditioning plant operators are advised to change the existing filters.
Jeg er derfor nu interesseret i at erfare fra Dem, hvorvidt disse målinger har fundet sted, hvilke værdier man har fundet frem til, og om filtrene er blevet udskiftet.
That is why I would now be interested to hear from you, Madam President, whether these measurements have been taken, what the readings were and whether any filters were changed.
Vi har i udvalget til valgs prøvelse gjort os tanker om, at udskiftningen i Parlamentet kunne stige betydeligt, og at denne kollega muligvis også meget snart ville nedlægge sit mandat.
President. — Mr Schwalba-Hoth, the measurements asked for have been taken and the levels found are considered normal.
Vi vil derfor gøre opmærksom på dette punkt.
The results of the checks carried out will be communicated in writing in the course of the day to the chairmen of the political groups and the matter can then be considered further.
Griffiths (S). — (EN) Fru formand, til forretningsordenen vedrørende overtrædelsen af artikel 56 i går.
Mr Griffiths (S). — Madam President, on a procedural point, with regard to the way in which Rule 56 was not upheld yesterday, will you be adding a note to the minutes of yesterday or will today's minutes con
Vil De vedføje gårsdagens protokol en note, eller vil protokollen for i dag indeholde en komplet gengivelse af den protest, der er kommet fra visse medlemmers side?
In the Committee on the Verification of Credentials we were concerned that the fluctuation in this House could increase sharply and that quite possilby this latter member may also resign very shortly. We wanted to point that out.
(Protokollen godkendtes)
I felt that was the fairest thing I could do.
For det andet havde vi en første drøftelse af de konsekvenser, som kunne opstå for Spanien på grund af valget til den lovgivende forsamling, der er fastsat til den 22. juni.
Secondly, we had an exchange of views on the possible consequences for Spain of the elections to the legislative bodies to be held on 22 June.
For de spanske kolleger gælder artikel 28, stk. 2, i tiltrædelsestraktaten, så længe der ikke har været afholdt valg til Europa-Parlamentet — for Spanien er de endnu ikke fastsat.
Article 28 (2) of the Treaty of Accession applies to our Spanish colleagues as long as no European elections are held in Spain — and no date has been fixed yet for that.
I henhold til denne traktat skal kollegerne i mellemtiden udpeges af det spanske parlaments midte.
Under this treaty, members from the centre of the Spanish Parliament have to be appointed in the meantime.
Det er et fortolkningsspørgsmål, hvad der sker, hvis der den 22. juni sker ændringer blandt medlemmerne af de spanske lovgivende organer.
What will happen if changes occur to the membership of the Spanish legislative bodies on 22 June is a question of interpretation.
Daly (ED). — (EN) Fru formand, til forretningsordenen.
To the argument put to me and also to the House on Monday, why worry because we discuss the whole globe anyway?
Jeg vil gerne henlede Parlamentets opmærksomhed på en meddelelse, der blev givet i det britiske fjernsyn i går aftes, om, at Bob Geldorfs organisation, Band Aid, fastfryser sin hjælp til Etiopien, fordi for syninger af tæpper og andet, der var tiltænkt Eritrea
I would distinguish the matters that we often discuss such as human rights, political freedoms or the lack of them in various regimes in the world, disasters etc., in the following way.
Dette spørgsmål — det var det, jeg ved denne lejlighed ville meddele kollegerne — undersøges for øje blikket, og vi bestræber os på en Europavenlig for tolkning, som styrker integrationen i vort arbejde.
The Question is being looked at now — which is what I wanted to tell my colleagues — and we are trying to find a pro-Europe interpretation which will promote the integration of our activities.
Og hvad katastrofer angår, kan vi helt legitimt yde penge.
And as regards disasters, we can grant money quite legitimately.
På det politiske område kan vi udsende observatører, hvilket vi fra parlamentets side officielt har gjort.
In the political field we can send observers as we have done officially from this Parliament.
Men jeg siger: vi kan ikke ændre Fællesskabet til et forsvarsfællesskab — punkt 55 ligger klart uden for traktaten, punkt 54 ligger lige på grænsen.
But I say we cannot change this Community into a defence Community — Item 55 is very clearly beyond the Treaty, Item 54 is marginal.
Min gruppe forsøgte at få 54 og 55 adskilt, men det lykkedes desværre ikke for os.
My group sought to get 54 and 55 separated and failed.
Hvad ville derfor være den rigtige fremgangsmåde, fru formand, hvis Parlamentet tilsluttede sig min opfattelse af, at 55 ligger uden for traktaten?
So, Madam President, if the House were with me in saying 55 was outside the Treaty, what was the proper thing to do?
En sidste teknisk bemærkning, fru formand.
A final, technical comment, Madam President.
Ved af viklingen af udvalgsmøder i tilknytning til plenarmøderne opstod der i går vanskeligheder, som skyldes organisatoriske problemer.
Diffi culties due to material problems arose yesterday in connection with committee meetings on the sidelines of the plenary sittings.
Således var f.eks. mødet i udvalget til valgs prøvelse begrænset til en halv time, fordi det fandt sted mellem mødet i udvalget om regionalpolitik og fysisk planlægning og mødet i bud getudvalget.
For instance, the meeting of the Committee on the Verification of Credentials was limited to half an hour because it took place between the meeting of the Committee on Regional Policy and Regional Planning and that of the Committee on Budgets.
Jeg ville være taknemmelig, om de kolleger, der har ansvaret for dette område, navnlig også De, fru formand, for fremtiden kunne sørge for, at sådanne tekniske flaskehalse ikke mere forekom mer.
I would be grateful if in future the Members responsible, and in particular you, Madam President, could ensure that such technical bottlenecks do not recur.
(Mandaterne godkendtes)
(Parliament ratified the appointments)
Europæisk sikkerhed — Mulighed for strategisk forsvar
European security — Strategic defence programme
Ewing (RDE). — (EN) Fru formand, jeg må gøre ind sigelse.
Mrs Ewing (RDE). — Madam President, I must take you up on this.
Dette problem er overhovedet ikke blevet drøftet.
It has not been dealt with at all.
Jeg rejste dette spørgsmål i fuld overensstemmelse med artikel 84, hvor det klart siges:
I properly raised this matter under Rule 84 which says clearly:
Ved åbningen af forhandlingen om et bestemt...
At the beginning of the debate on a specific..
B2171/86 - 0-213/85) af Poettering, Hänsch, Klepsch, Gawronski, Segre, Charzat, Penders, Tzounis, Selva, Mallet, Dankert, Boesmans, Prag, sir Peter Vanneck, Galluzzi og Cicciomessere til udenrigsministrene i politisk samarbejde om den europæiske sikkerheds politiske og økonomiske aspekter inden for rammerne af EPS (punkt 54 på dagsordenen);
B2-171/86 — 0-213/85) by Mr Poettering, Mr Hänsch, Mr Klepsch, Mr Gawronski, Mr Segre, Mrs Charzat, Mr Penders, Mr Tzounis, Mr Selva, Mr Mallet, Mr Danken, Mr Boesmans, Mr Prag, Sir Peter Vanneck, Mr Galluzzi and Mr Cicciomessere to the Foreign Ministers of the Member States meeting in political cooperation on the political and economic aspects of European security in the context of European political cooperation (Item 54 on the agenda);
Vi taler ikke om at ændre dagsordenen, hvilket skete i mandags.
We are not talking about changing the agenda, which is what Monday's debate was about.
Vi taler om antagelighed .
We are talking about admissibility.
I mandags gav jeg Parlamentet besked, og formanden var til stede ved den lejlighed, så derfor kan De på ingen måde nu komme og fortælle mig, at jeg ikke har overholdt reglerne, for dét har jeg afgjort.
On Monday I served notice to this House and the President was with me on that occasion and there is no way you can now tell me I am out of order because I am definitely in order.
Det kan der ikke være tvivl om. Jeg rådførte mig også med hr. de la Malene og andre eksperter om dette spørgsmål.
On that there is no doubt.
B2170/86 - 0-176/85) af Toussaint, Donnez, Romeo, Wolff, Bettiza, Gawronski, Pininfarina og Di Bartolomei til udenrigsministrene i politisk sam arbejde om mulighed for europæisk strategisk for svar (punkt 55 på dagsordenen).
B2-170/86 — 0-176/85) by Mr Toussaint, Mr Donnez, Mr Romeo, Mr Wolff, Mr Bettiza, Mr Gawronski, Mr Pininfarina and Mr Di Bartolomei to the Foreign Ministers of the Member States of the European Community meeting in political cooperation on a European strategic defence programme (Item 55 on the agenda)
Ewing (RDE). — (EN) Fru formand, jeg tager ordet i henhold til artikel 84 for at bemærke, at punkt 55 på dagsordenen er uantageligt, idet det ligger uden for Romtraktaten.
Mrs Ewing (RDE). — Madam President, I rise to my feet under Rule 84 to argue that item 55 on the agenda is not admissible since it is outside the Treaty of Rome.
Jeg mente, at det var mest fair af mig at gøre det.
I gave notice to this House on Monday as a
Mit sidste argument mod antageligheden af punkt 55 er, at jeg som formand for udvalget om ungdom, kultur, ud dannelse, information og sport i det mindste delvis er ansvarlig for at sikre, at informationer fra Parlamentet og Fællesskabet når ud til vælgerne.
My last argument against the admissibilty of Item 55 is that as chairman of the Committee on Youth, Culture, Education, Information and Sport, I am at least partly responsible for making sure information from this Parliament and this Community reaches the electors.
Vil vi vildlede dem? Har vi løjet over for dem?
'The Treaty of Rome is not a defence Treaty'.
Jeg er ikke i tvivl om, at de, der ønsker at ændre den til en forsvarstraktat, er oprigtige, men jeg siger Dem, at punkt 55 er uantageligt i henhold til artikel 84.
Have we been lying to them? I don't doubt the sincerity of those who want to make it into a defence treaty,
(Bifald)
Page 102
Europa-Parlamentets forhandlinger
Ewing but I say to you that Item 55 is inadmissible under Rule 84.
Griffiths henhold til artikel 2 i EF-traktaten som hovedformål at skabe et fællesmarked gennem gradvis tilnærmelse af de forskellige medlemsstaters økonomiske politik.
President. — Pursuant to Rule 82(2), on motions (a) to (e) only the following may speak, and each for not more than three minutes: the mover of the motion, one speaker for and one against.
Et sådant forslag sættes straks under afstemning«.
Mr Poettering has spoken in favour of preceeding with the debate.
Derfor anmoder jeg Dem, fru formand, om at sætte forslaget under afstemning straks.
I shall now give the floor to one speaker against.
Poettering (PPE). — (DE) Fru formand, kære kolleger, man kan kun undres over det, fru Ewing netop sagde.
On the question therefore of whether we are to pro ceed with this debate, I shall give the floor to one speaker for and one against.
Hele traktaten er udarbejdet med henblik på at realisere dette mål. Militære aspekter er klart uden for traktatens område.
Mr Griffiths (S). — Madam President, under Rule 84 there is no provision made for debate at all.
Det fremgår klart af artikel 223, stk. 1, litra a og b. Det foreliggende emne er klart uden for EØF-traktatens kompetence.
It says that 'at the beginning of the debate on a specific item on the agenda its inadmissibility may be moved.
Det er en sag udelukkende for medlemsstaterne.
Such a motion shall be put to the vote immediately'.
Parlamentet har derfor som EF-institution ingen beføjelse i denne sag.
So I ask you now, Madam President, to put the motion to the vote.
(Bifald) når hun siger, at Parlamentet ikke bør drøfte sikker hedsspørgsmål.
President. — Mr Griffiths, I said just now that one Member may speak in favour and one against.
Parlamentet har i de sidste syv år siden de direkte valg i 1979 for længst afgjort, at sikkerhedsspørgsmål hører hjemme her.
Mr Pegado Liz (RDE). — (PT) Madam President, my dear colleagues, it is with some perplexity that I am present, in fact, at this debate and if I undertake the defence of the motion for inadmissibility that has been moved here, I do so, fundamentally, as a matter of principle.
Parlamentet kan og må udtale sig om et hvilket som helst emne, det ønsker, om det så er, hvilket køn englene har, men det er ikke et forum til diskussion af det pågældende emne.
Obviously the interest of the subject is not in question.
Jeg bestrider ikke dets vigtig hed, men diskussionen vil kun være relevant i et forsvarsministermøde, samlet om et militært samarbejde.
And I, belonging to a country which has been directly involved in a Western defence system for many years, would scarcely deny the interest of the subject.
Det finder ikke sted inden for rammerne af Rom traktaten.
This is not what is in question here.
Derfor støtter jeg forslaget om uantagelighed af principielle grunde og for en juridisk rigtig anvendelse af traktaterne.
What is in question is, effectively, an essential distinction in the content of these two motions which are presented.
De påberåber Dem Deres vælgere, fru Ewing.
Inadmissibility was raised exclusively in relation to Item 55.
Vi, europæerne, må foretage os noget!
And this is what is in question.
Jeg anmoder Dem, fru formand, om at foretage af stemning, således at vi hurtigst muligt kan påbegynde forhandlingen med rådsformanden, hr. Van Eekelen.
Mr Poettering (PPE). — (DE) Madam President, honourable Members, surely what our highly esteemed colleague Mrs Ewing has just said is most surprising.
Jeg er sikker på, at Parlamentet med stort flertal vil tilslutte sig vores fælles opfattelse.
I must ask Mrs Ewing where she has been for the last seven years in this European Parliament,
(Bifald)
(Applause) to be able to say that this Parliament must not debate defence matters.
Griffiths (S). — (EN) Til forretningsordenen, fru for mand.
Subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Article 223(1) are explicit and clear in this sense.
Jeg vil bede Dem fore lægge sagen for udvalget om forretningsordenen og for andragender, således at vi kan få afklaret spørgsmålet.
Parliament, as a Com munity institution, does not enjoy the power of decision in this matter.
Hr. Poettering talte for en fortsættelse af forhandlingen.
You refer to your electorate, Mrs Ewing.
Jeg vil nu give ordet til en taler, der er imod fortsættelse af forhandlingen.
So I can only express surprise at hearing you make a statement of that kind.
Jeg sætter fru Ewings anmodning om at tage punkt 54 og 55 af dagsordenen under afstemning.
And therefore, exclusively for reasons of principle, of coherence and of correctness in the application of the Treaties, I must support and speak in support of the motion of inadmissibility.
Det, der tæller her, er at skelne mellem indholdet af de to fore liggende forslag.
I am sure that Parliament will endorse our common position by a large majority.
Andrews (RDE). — (EN) Fru formand, jeg har ventet på en lejlighed til at komme med et indlæg til forretningsordenen.
Mr Griffiths (S). — Point of order, Madam Presi dent.
Det undrer mig ikke, at et konservativt parti og
Following your drawing our attention to Rule
(Bifald)
No 2-339/101
Poettering (PPE). — (DE) Fru formand, kære kolleger, det er anden gang i Europa-Parlamentets historie, at vi på grundlag af en mundtlig forespørgsel med forhandling drøfter sikkerhedspolitiske spørgsmål med udenrigsministrene.
82(2), there is obviously a contradiction between Rule 82(2), subparagraph (a), and Rule 84, because under Rule 84 it says that 'such a motion shall be put to the vote immediately', while Rule 82 does give the opportunity, as you have done, to allow speakers on either side.
Jeg minder om, at vi i juli sidste år under Luxembourgs formandskab førte den første forhandling om sikkerhedsspørgsmål.
I would ask you to draw this to the attention of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Petitions so that we can sort it out.
Fru Ewing stillede forslag om, at vi stemte om nr. 55 om stjernekrigsforskning, et militært forslag som ligger uden for Rom-traktaten, og som er en fornærmelse mod et neutralt land som Irland.
55 on star wars research, a military proposal which is outside the scope of the Treaty of Rome and constitutes an offence to a neutral country such as Ireland.
De sagde, at afstemningen var om nr. 54 og 55.
You said that the vote was on Item 54 and 55.
Det skulle kun have været om nr. 55.
It should only have been on Item 55.
Desuden foregik optællingen så hurtigt og sjusket, at ingen havde en chance for at se, hvem der stemte for, og hvem der stemte imod.
In any case the count was performed in such a hurried and slapdash manner that no one had a chance to see who was voting for and who was voting against the motion.
Jeg forlanger, at vi stemmer om, og at vi gør det på et regulært grundlag.
I demand that the vote be taken again, this time apply ing the proper procedure.
Begivenhederne i Libyen for fire uger siden viste os, at europæerne gør uklogt i ikke at handle i sikkerhedspolitiske spørgsmål.
President. — Ladies and gentlemen, obviously anyone can tell the Chair how to conduct its business.
For når vi ikke handler, handler andre, og vi europæere burde så ikke altid kritisere de andre for deres handlinger.
How ever, if you read Rule 82(2), indent (a), carefully, you will see that a procedural motion may be moved for the purpose of determining the inadmissibility of a matter under Rule 84.
Vi kritiserer stormagterne, når de gør noget.
Let us therefore call a halt to this discussion.
(Bifald fra venstre)
(Parliament rejected this request)
Falconer (S). — (EN) Fru formand, jeg havde hånden oppe længe før en række talere, og før De gik over til afstemningen, hvilket er vigtigere.
Mr Falconer (S). — Madam President, I had my hand up for a considerable time, before a number of speak ers, and before you actually moved on to the vote, which is more important.
Jeg håber, De vil indrømme, at afstemningen fandt sted på et forkert grundlag.
I hope you will agree that your vote was taken on a wrong premise.
De sagde — og De må rette mig, hvis jeg tager fejl — at artikel 82, stk. 2, litra a åbnede mulig hed for en taler for og en taler imod et forslag, der er stillet, og et sådant forslag blev korrekt stillet af fru Ewing. De tog to talere, der var imod fru Ewings for slag.
You said — and you can correct me if I am wrong — that Article 82(2) (a) allowed for one speaker for and one against after a proposal had been put, and such a proposal was put properly by Mrs Ewing.
Der var ingen af dem, der på noget tidspunkt talte for fru Ewings forslag.
No speaker at any time spoke in favour of Mrs Ewing's proposition.
Vi bør og skal med henblik herpå — jeg nævner det som et supplement til fru Ewings bemærkninger til dagsordenen for et øjeblik siden — også opfatte Det europæiske Fællesskab som et sikkerhedsfællesskab.
Mrs Ewing quite correctly drew the attention of the House to what, in her opinion, was a problem regard ing the Treaties of Rome.
Efter Spaniens og Portugals tiltrædelse bor der nu 320 millioner mennesker i Fællesskabet.
I ask you again, in all sin cerity, to allow a speaker from the Chamber — not myself — to speak in favour of Mrs Ewing's proposal and then to put it to the vote.
Derfor hilser vi det velkomment, at spanierne gik ind for en forbliven i den vestlige alliance for der med at styrke Europa, og det er det, det først og frem mest drejer sig om.
I am not surprised that a Tory party and other people who are in favour of defence and against disarmament were whipped in here.
Når vi, hr. rådsformand, venter en definition af en europæisk sikkerhedsplan af udenrigsministrene, skal
I want to make it absolutely clear that when this subject comes up for debate, I want it put on record that.. .
Fru Ewing henledte med rette Parlamentets opmærksomhed på det, der efter hendes opfattelse var et pro blem med hensyn til Romtraktaten.
Mr von der Vring (S). — (DE) Madam President, you have interpreted the Rules of Procedure absolutely correctly and informed us that pursuant to the Rules of Procedure we should vote immediately.
Derfor beder jeg Dem oprigtigt om at give en taler — ikke mig — lejlighed til at tale for fru Ewings forslag og dernæst sætte det under afstemming.
That means that the debate begins after this vote and that there will be no procedural debate.
Poettering mener, at vi ikke bør drøfte sikkerhedspolitik, til at tage dette aspekt med i deres overvejelser.
President. — Mr Andrews, I have given you the floor to speak on a point of order and not to make a politi cal statement.
udgangspunktet for en sådan sikkerhedsplan være klart.
Political statements are allowed only at the end of the debate.
Nogle punkter vil jeg nævne, hvorom jeg tror, at de skal indgå i en europæisk sikkerhedsplan.
Mr Cryer (S). — Madam President, when I was shouting out, it was not for a point of order, it was actually to ask for an electronic check on the voting.
For det første: tilknytning til den vestlige alliance.
You appeared to nod vigorously at that.
Vi må tage denne trussel fra kortrækkende våben langt mere seriøs.
President. — The result of the vote was perfectly clear.
Til en sådan sikkerhedsplan hører efter min mening endvidere, at vi går ind for en verdensomspændende afskaffelse af kemiske og biologiske våben; zoner uden kemiske våben og atomvåbenfrie zoner er ikke nogen løsning.
Mr Poettering (PPE). — (DE) Madam President, honourable Members, this is the second time in the history of this Parliament that we are discussing security policy with the Foreign Ministers on the basis of an oral question with debate.
Begrebet sikkerhed og sikkerhedens politiske og økonomiske aspekter bør opfattes bredt, hr. rådsformand.
May I remind you that we held the first debate on security policy in July last year under the Luxembourg presidency.
Jeg opfordrer Dem til at opfatte dette begreb » sikkerhedens økonomiske og politiske aspekter« i den europæiske fælles akt bredt og ikke foretage nogen kunstig afgrænsning.
Mr van Eekelen, we look forward to continuing this debate today, and above all we do, of course, expect you to take account of our views on the development of a European security concept afterwards in your reply.
En bemærkning stilet til dem, som overhovedet er imod, at vi inddrager sikkerhedspolitiske spørgsmål i vort arbejde.
Mrs Hammerich (ARC). — (DA) Madam President, like Mr Cryer, I also want to protest over the vote which has taken place.
Det er da dybest set ulogisk.
The wrong procedure was followed for it.
Derfor opfordrer vi dem, som
Mrs Ewing moved that we vote on Item
Vi venter nu af udenrigsministrene, at det sekretariat, der skal oprettes, ikke bare bliver et sekretariat med nationale tjenestemænd, men at der også der gås frem efter fællesskabsregeler, dvs. at dette sekretariat også vil være i stand til at gå ind i en virkelig dialog med Europa-Parlamentet, med dets udvalg, herunder også under udvalget om sikkerhed og nedrustning.
The Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament thinks that so far the Foreign Ministers have failed to give a clear definition of a European security concept and to present it to the public. The reason we are