natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det er rigtigt, at jeg i mit indlæg før kun ganske kort berørte dette problem, som jeg nu vil behandle for melt og mere udtrykkeligt; jeg understreger, at Kom missionens forslag i alle tilfælde tillader medlemsstaterne at deltage i ordningen og at udbetale en til finansiering af de pågældende kvoter svarende andel, samt at Kommissionens forslag netop siger, at det er medlemsstaerne tilladt og anbefalet at tage hensyn til både regionale og andre omstændigheder.
I did, indeed, touch on this problem in my speech a moment ago, but I should like to deal with it now more formally and specifically. I want to stress in particular that as envisaged by the Commission, the proposal will in any event enable Member States to participate in the scheme, first of all, and to pay part of the cost of financing the quotas in question and that in the present instance, this proposal of the Commission clearly lays down that Member States are permit ted and, indeed, recommended to take account of special regional circumstances and other concerns.
Vi drøftede ikke dette punkt så indgående, men i denne forbindelse fremhævede vil også en række problemer vedrørende unge landmænd osv.
We did not discuss this point at any great length, but in this context we also stressed certain concerns regard ing young farmers, etc.
Så vil jeg ganske kort sige et par ord om ændringsforslagene.
A brief word on the various amendments that have been tabled.
Kommissionen kan ikke acceptere ændringsforslag nr. 4, 5, 6, 8 og 9, da den foreslåede ordning er en fællesskabsordning, hvorefter de samme regler skal være gældende overalt, ligesom de samme betalingskriterier skal gælde for alle producenter.
The Commission cannot accept Amend ments Nos 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, since the scheme proposed is a Community one in which the same rules have to be applicable everywhere and the same payment criteria applied to every farmer.
Man bør undgå enhver konkurrence mellem de nationale systemer og fællesskabssystemet, og derfor kan der ikke længere tolereres nogen
On the other hand, the Commission can accept Amendment No 7 on account of the reference to Parliament.
Welsh (ED). - (EN) I tilknytning til fru Dalys indlæg til forretningsordenen, hr. formand, var det meget interessant at høre, hvad kommissæren netop havde at sige os, men jeg tror, at det, som vi faktisk havde i tankerne, var ejerne og forpagterne.
Mr Welsh (ED). — Further to Mrs Daly's point of order, Mr President, what the Commissioner has just told us was all very interesting, but I think the question we actually had in mind was the issue of landlords
Mosar, medlem af Kommissionen. — (FR) Hr. for mand, jeg er helt indforstået med at acceptere dette forslag og at videregive de fremsatte ønsker til hr. Andriessen.
I accept that the Commissioner probably does not know the answer, but could we ask him, in all courtesy, to convey the views that have been expressed here to Mr Andriessen and ask Mr Andriessen to come to the House at an early opportunity and give us the answers that we actually need.
Woltjer (S), ordfører. — (NL) Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne sige noget om dette procedureforslag.
Mr Woltjer (S), rapporteur. — (NL) Mr President, I should like to say a word about this procedural propo sal.
I denne uge har vi accepteret uopsættelig behandling af det foreliggende forslag fra Kommissionen.
This week we have accepted the urgency of the Commission proposal before us.
Vi har endog insisteret på, at vi som Parlament kunne afgive en udtalelse herom i rette tid.
We insisted ourselves that as a Parliament we could produce our opinion in time.
Vi har alle stemt for den.
We all voted for that.
Nu kommer der pludselig igen et forslag om alligevel at afvise uopsættelig behandling og henvise sagen til fornyet udvalgsbehandling.
Now all at once comes a proposal to ignore the urgency and refer the matter back to the Committee.
Det er jeg en afgjort mod stander af.
I categorically oppose that.
Det er ikke en måde at handle på, den ene dag at stemme på den ene måde og den næste dag på den anden måde.
That is no way to proceed — to vote one day this way and next day another.
Det går ikke an her.
That will not do here.
Prout (ED). — (EN) Hr. formand, som De ved, er vi blevet hørt meget sent om denne sag.
Mr Prout (ED). — Mr President, as you know, we have been consulted on this matter very late in the day.
Hvis hr. An driessen skal gøre dette — jeg forstår hr. Mosars bemærkning som et tilsagn på hr. Andriessens vegne om at gøre det — skal han selvfølgelig komme her, inden forordningen vedtages af Rådet.
If Mr Andriessen is to do this — and I take Mr Mosar's remark to be a commitment on Mr Andriessen's behalf to do so — he will, of course, have to come here before the regulation is adopted by the Council.
Ellers ville hans tilstedeværelse her for at give os de oplysninger, vi ønsker, klart være meningsløs.
Otherwise, his coming here to give us the information we want would clearly be meaningless.
Formanden. — Før.jeg kommer til hele forslaget til beslutning, ønsker De, hr. de Courcy Ling, at holde fast ved Deres anmodning?
President. — Before I come to the motion for a reso lution as a whole, Mr de Courcy Ling, do you wish to maintain your request?
Formanden. — Hr. Maher, det er ikke til forretningsordenen. ordenen.
President. — Mr Maher, that is not a point of order.
de Courcy Ling (ED). — (EN) Hr. formand, jeg me ner, at det ville være upassende for mig at anmode om tilbagevisning til udvalget, da det egentlig er hr. Woltjers opgave som ordfører at behandle problemet med hensyn til, at der ikke har været nogen reaktion fra Kommissionens side på de meget specifikke be kymringer, der er givet udtryk for her i formiddag.
So, I would ask you, Mr President, with great respect to give the rapporteur the opportunity to consider this problem and to put a proposal to the House.
Jeg anmoder Dem derfor om, hr. formand, at give ordføreren lejlighed til at behandle dette problem og forelægge Parlamentet et forslag.
Mr de Courcy Ling (ED). — I just wanted to request, Mr President, that pending the appearance of Mr Andriessen before the House to give us the answers to the very important questions that have been asked, this report should be referred back to the committee under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.
Formanden. — Hr. de Courcy Ling, uden at henvise til forretningsordenen tror jeg, at det kun er ordføreren eller udvalgsformanden, der rent faktisk kan an mode om tilbagevisning til udvalget.
President. — Mr de Courcy Ling, without referring to the Rules, I believe that only the rapporteur or the chairman of the committee can actually ask for refer ral back to committee.
Hvis man læser hele ordlyden af artikel 85, stik. 1, hedder det :
If you read the whole of the clause of the Rule 85(1), it says that:
En anmodning kan fremsattes »på ethvert tidspunkt under for handlingen «, indtil afstemningen påbegyndes.
A request may be made 'at any time' during the debate before final voting begins,
Jeg var ved at sætte betænkningen under afstemning, da anmodningen kom. Jeg vil ikke acceptere dette indlæg til forretningsordenen.
I was announcing the vote when the request came, I am not going to accept that point of order.
Tolman (PPE), formand for udvalget om landbrug, fiskeri og ernæring. - (NL) Hr. formand, måske må jeg som formand for udvalget om landbrug, fiskeri og ernæring gøre en enkelt bemærkning.
Mr Tolman (PPE), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. — (NL) Mr President, perhaps I may, as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, make a single observation.
Det drejer sig — det har jeg forstået af de britiske kolleger — om et vigtigt spørgsmål, nemlig forholdet mellem forpagter og ejer. Det er særdeles klart.
The question — as I have clearly understood from my English colleagues — is a very important question, namely the relationship between landlord and tenant.
Jeg må sige, at under diskussionen i landbrugsudvalget blev der ikke lagt så stor vægt herpå, men jeg er enig med hr. Woltjer: man har anmodet om uopsættelig behandling, og jeg mener, at den afsluttende afstemning nu også må finde sted.
I must say that in the discussion in the Committee on Agriculture that was not particularly emphasized, but I agree with Mr Woltjer: We are being asked for urgency and I think that the final vote must be taken now.
Jeg bemærker i denne forbindelse, at når det drejer sig om denne sag, kan der her udvikle sig en ganske interessant retspraksis, for vi har i de forskel lige lande...
I take note that if we are to discuss this question a very interesting amount of caselaw may emerge, because in the various countries we have . . .
Formanden. - Jeg giver ikke flere ordet til forretningsordenen.
President. — Thank you Mr Tolman.
Vi går over til afstemningen indtil den endelige afstemning om hele forslaget til beslutning.
We know that you want the vote to take place, and that is the only information we need.
Hvis der så fremsættes en anmodning om tilbagevisning til beslutning.
President. — I shall not take any more points of order.
Hvis der så fremsættes en anmod-
We shall proceed with the vote up to the final vote on the motion for a resolution as a whole.
C 2-150/85) til forordning om ændring af for ordning (EØF) nr. 1785/81 om den fælles markedsordning for sukker.
C 2-150/85) for a regulation (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector.
Woljer (S), ordfører. — (NL) Jeg tror, at vi her skal beskæftige os med et særlig vigtigt spørgmsmål, men debatten derom er i realiteten formålsløs.
Mr Woltjer (S), rapporteur. — (NL) I think we ate now about to embark on a particularly important sub ject, but in fact debate about it is pointless.
Hvad er nu problemet?
What is the problem?
Rådet har truffet en principafgørelse under forbehold af Parlamentets udtalelse.
The Council has taken a decision in principle, subject to the opinion of the Parliament.
Det forstår jeg ikke.
I cannot understand that.
Jeg kan ikke forstå, at man træffer en afgørelse og så siger, vi venter lige på udtalelsen, inden vi virkelig træffer denne afgørelse.
I cannot understand that one should take a decision and then say: 'We will wait for the opinion before we take that decision in earnest.
Der er først en principafgørelse, og først når Parlamentet har afgivet sin udtalelse, siger vi, at vi vil gennemføre afgørelsen.
There is first of all a decision in principle and we will take the real decision only when Parliament has given its opinion'.
En sådan medbestemmelse om proceduren anser jeg for uacceptabel, og jeg vil derfor også sige til Rådet : vi har brugt vores tid til så hurtigt som muligt at afgive en udtalelse, og De har simppelt hen forbigået det, De har simpelt hen ringeagtet os, og det anser jeg for alvorligt.
I find that kind of participation unacceptable and I would say to the Council: We have spent our time providing our opinion as quickly as possible, and your normal custom is to disregard it; you have been accustomed to hold us in contempt, and I regard that as a serious matter.
Hr. de Courcy Ling og jeg ønsker ikke som menige enkeltmedlemmer at blive tvunget til at anvende artikel 85, stk. 1.
Mr de Courcy Ling and I as ordinary individual Members do not want to be forced to use Rule 85(1).
Det vil tvinge Parlamentet til, hvis afstemningsresultatet er positivt, at tilbagevise spørgsmålet til udvalget.
That would compel the House, if the vote was favourable, to refer the matter back to committee.
Det er klart uhensigtsmæssigt.
That would be clearly inappropriate.
Det eneste, vi søger at opnå, er en garanti for, at der indtil hr. Andriessen kommer og besvarer de spørgsmål, vi har stillet, ikke vil blive gjort yder ligere i Kommissionen og Rådet.
All we are seeking is the guarantee that until Mr Andriessen comes and answers the questions we have asked, nothing further will be done in the Commission and Council.
Den mest hensigtsmæssige afgørelse, Parlamentet kan træffe, or derfor blot at udsætte afstemningen til næste mødeperiode, men jeg bar som enkeltmedlem ikke beføjelse til at gøre det i henhold til forretningsordenen.
The appropriate deci sion, therefore, for the House to take would be simply to delay the vote until the next session, but I, as an individual Member, do not have the power to do that under the Rules.
Kun ordføreren og formanden har den beføjelse.
Only the rapporteur and the chair man have that power.
Det er ukorrekt at sige, at det er os, der har anmodet om uopsættelig behandling.
It is incorrect to say that it is we who have asked for urgency.
Det er ikke Parlamentet, der har anmodet om uopsættelig behandling; det er Rådet.
It is not the House that has asked for urgency; it is the Council.
Hvis vi ikke får de rigtige svar fra Rådet eller Kom missionen, er høringen af os meningsløs.
If the right answers are not given to us by the Council or Com mission, our being consulted is a nonsense.
Jeg anmoder ordføreren og formanden indtrængende om at tænke på deres institutionelle ansvar over for Parlamentet.
I do implore the rapporteur and the chairman to consider their institutional responsibilities to this House.
Vi anmoder blot om en udsættelse.
We are only asking for a delay.
Formanden. — Hr. Prout, vi har noteret os, hvad De har sagt.
President. — Mr Prout, we have noted what you said.
Hvad er der sket i denne procedure?
The House did agree to the request for urgency.
Jeg sagde: vi har haft en forhandling, vi kunne have inddraget dette punkt i forhandlingen.
As I said, we have had a debate; we could have raised this matter in the debate.
Jeg beklager, hr. Prout, at det te punkt ikke tidligere har været fremført.
I regret, Mr Prout, that this point was not brought up earlier.
Vi har i en arbejdsgruppe om mælkekvotaen ikke kunnet drøfte det.
We were not able to discuss it in a working party on milk quotas.
Hvorfor kommer De nu med det i sidste øjeblik, idet De dermed udelukker muligheden for, at vi får virkelig indflydelse?
Why bring it up at the last minute, and deprive us of a chance to have a real say?
Rådets princip afgørelse indebærer, at man om to år igen skal se på sagen, og jeg anmoder derfor allerede nu Kommissionen om et løfte om, at vi i forbindelse med den forhandling, som skal finde sted i løbet af de kom mende to år, rettidigt inddrages intensivt heri, at den rettidigt tilsender os et evalueringsnotat, og at vi så virkelig kan drøfte indholdet med hinanden.
During the debate in the Council the Commission completely changed its proposals and at the time when it transmit ted the new proposals to the Council the Commission could well have said to the Council: We understand that you will not approve our original proposal and we shall present you with a fresh proposal, but in order to draw up the new proposal we shall also have to take into account the debate in Parliament. That would have been one possibility.
A2-209/85) af Woltjer for udvalget om landbrug, fiskeri og ernæring om
A 2-209/85) by Mr Woltjer, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on the proposal from the Commission to the Council (COM (85) 433 final — Doc.
Hvad har jeg gjort i min betænkning?
What have I put in my report?
Jeg fandt det ikke hensigtsmæssigt at gå i detaljer med principafgørelsen nu, eventuelt at lade vor kritik høre, for det betyder ikke andet end, at vi alligevel taler for døve ører, for Rådet har i realiteten allerede truffet denne afgørelse.
I did not regard it as sensible to go into details now regarding the decision in principle or where appropriate to voice our criticism of it, since that would mean nothing other than talking in vacuo because the Council in fact has already taken this decision.
Meget mere hensigtsmæssigt er det da også at blive intensivt inddraget i den debat, der skal finde sted i løbet af de kommende to år.
There is much more sense in our being involved in depth in the debate which is to take place within two years.
(') Ordføreren udtalte sig: — FOR ændringsforslag nr. 2-10, 13, 16 og 17; - IMOD ændringsforslag nr. 1, 11, 12, 14, 15 og 18.
The rapporteur spoke: — IN FAVOUR OF Amendments Nos 2 to 10, 13, 16 and 17; — AGAINST Amendments Nos 1, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 18.
Det andet punkt, som jeg vil fremdrage her: den principafgørelse, der nu foreligger, går ud på, at man ge problemer i realiteten skubbes til side. I punkt 2 i
There is a second point which I should like to make here: the decision in principle that we now have before us amounts simply to the fact that many problems have
Woljer beslutningen er disse problemer opremset, og det er af stor betydning, og det gentager jeg, at Kommissionen inddrager disse punkter i sin vurdering af sukkermarkedsordningen.
I am in complete agreement with the second passage of paragraph 4 which comes down in favour of measures for guaranteeing strict equality between sugar and starch.
Det kræver vi af Kommission en, fordi forhandlingen vil være mere meningsfyldt, hvis den kan give dette løfte.
It is in fact of enormous importance that as soon as possible uses of sugar for the chemical indus try .. .
Den anden passage i punkt 8, hvor man går ind for foranstaltninger for at sikre absolut ligestilling mel lem sukker og stivelse, kan jeg helt tilslutte mig.
been swept under the carpet. Those problems are enumerated in paragraph 2 of the resolution, and I would stress that it is most important for the Commission to take these points into account in its evaluation of the organization of the markets in sugar.
Det er faktisk af enorm betydning, at der hurtigst muligt findes frem til anvendelse af sukker i den kemiske industri...
We make that request to the Commission because the debate will be more meaningful if it can give that undertaking.
Vigtigt er det også, at Kommissionen hele tiden har sagt, at kvotaen er for høj.
It is important too that the Commission has always said that the quotas are too high.
Endnu i denne uge påpegede kommissær Andriessen udtrykkeligt i udvalget om landbrug, fiskeri og ernæring, at mælkekvotaerne, sukkerkvotaerne er sat for højt.
This very week refer ence was expressly made by Mr Commissioner Andriessen in the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the fact that the quotas for milk and the quotas for sugar were fixed too high.
Jeg har på dette om råde endnu ikke set noget som helst forslag fra Kom missionen.
I have not yet seen a single proposal from the Commission on this subject.
Lige så meget som jeg beklager, at Parlamentet kun i utilstrækkelig grad var inddraget i samrådet, lige så meget glæder det mig, at Rådet i et vanskeligt spørgsmål er kommet til et tilfredsstillende resultat så hurtigt.
Though I much regret that Parliament was not adequately brought into consultation, I am glad that the Council, dealing with a difficult subject, has reached a satisfactory result so rapidly.
Jeg beklager, at Parlamentet ikke var inddraget, men jeg anser det ikke for at være særlig klogt, når Parlamentet nu retter bebrejdelser mod Rådet, idet der så omvendt kunne rettes den bebrejdelse mod os, at vi sinker en hurtig beslutningsproces i Fællesskabet, ved at vi kun kritiserer Rådets afgørelse, fordi vi så at sige var for sent på den i denne sag.
Although I regret that Parliament was not brought in, I think it would not be very sensible for Parliament to reproach the Council on that account, since we might then be reproached with holding up what would otherwise have been a rapid Community decision by protesting merely because we had, so to speak, fallen behind in the decision-making process.
Mit sidste punkt, som jeg personligt er meget bekymret over, drejer sig om de vældig lave verdensmarkedspriser.
My last point, which is one that worries me personally, concerns the extremely low world market prices.
Vort marked er beskyttet imod dem, og jeg tror med rette.
Our market is protected from them, and I think rightly so.
Når vi imidlertid er medvirkende til disse lave verdensmarkedspriser, så er vi også ansvarlige for, hvad der i øjeblikket sker i visse ud viklingslande, nemlig at sukker produktionen dér går fallit, for til sådanne priser kan ingen producere.
But if we are partly the originators of those low world market prices, then we are partly responsible for what is going on at the moment in certain developing countries, namely that sugar producers there are going bankrupt, because no one can produce at such prices.
Der for mit spørgsmål : Vil Kommissionen indrømme, at det er nødvendigt som led i den internationale sukkeraftale at udfolde initiativer, således at disse aftaler virkelig bringes til udførelse, for at også udviklingslandene endelig kan få en chance for at producere deres produkter og bringe dem på markedet?
Hence my question: Will the Commission accept that it is necessary to develop initiatives within the frame work of the international sugar agreement in order that these agreements may be in fact implemented so that the developing countries too can finally have a chance to produce and market their products?
Derfor har vi stillet et ændringsforslag, der differentierer lidt på dette punkt.
We have therefore tabled an amendment which avoids putting all our eggs in one basket.
Fremover skal vi overveje, hvilken procedure vi kan udvikle mellem Kommissionen, Rådet og Parlamentet for at forhindre, at noget sådant forekommer igen, og at der ved klager ikke kan rettes den bebrejdelse mod os, at vi sinker beslutningsprocessen i Fællesskabet.
In future we must think carefully which procedure is to be pursued as between Commission, Council and Parliament, in order to avoid a repetition of this situation and to avoid leaving ourselves open to the reproach of hold ing up the Community decision-making process.
Det er det af gørende punkt, som det drejer sig om her.
That is the decisive point here.
Vernimmen (S). — (NL) Hr. formand, kære kolleger, i anledning af Woltjer-betænkningen et par bemærk ninger.
Mr Vernimmen (S). — (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, just a few remarks on the Woltjer report.
Min første bemærkning er inspireret af en grundlæggende formel indvending mod, at Rådet under sin samling den 9. og 10. december har truffet en principafgørelse om et ændret forslag fra Kommissionen, uden at Parlamentet var underrettet om dette ændringsforslag.
My first remark is prompted by a downright fundamental objection to the fact that the Council at its meeting on 9 and 10 December took a decision in principle on an amended proposal from the Commission without Parliament's being informed of this proposed amendment.
Det er ganske vist noget, som vi først skal drøfte på ny om to år, men vi ønsker at gøre op mærksom på det allerede nu, da det allerede findes her i teksten.
That is, admittedly, something we shall only be debating in two years' time, but we wanted to make the point now since it is mentioned in the text.
Jeg tilslutter mig derfor også helt hr. Woltjer — og det bør vi alle gøre — i hans udtrykkelige protest mod ringeagten for Europa-Parlamentets beføjelse til at udtale sig. For det grundlæggende princip for Fæl lesskabets retssystem består i en forudgående høring af Parlamentet.
I associate myself entirely with Mr Woltjer — as we all should — in his express protest against the disregard of the European Parliament's authority to give opinions, for the fundamental principle of our Com munity legal system consists in the prior consultation of Parliament.
Eller ønsker Rådet måske endnu en gang en dom fra Domstolen som i isoglukosesagen ?
Or is the Council perhaps wanting another judgment of the Court of Justice as in the isoglucose case?
Hvem ved, om Rådet ikke ønsker det og endog frem provokerer det?
Who knows whether the Council wants this and is perhaps provoking it itself?
Cassidy (ED). — (EN) Hr. formand, mit formål med at tage ordet i denne forhandling er endnu en gang at give udtryk for, hvor meget jeg og min gruppe beklager den måde, hvorpå forarbejdningsindustrien i Fæl lesskabet strækkes på den fælles landbrugspolitiks pi nebænk.
Mr Cassidy (ED). — Mr President, my purpose in rising to intervene in this debate is to say once again how unhappy I and my group are at the way in which man ufacturing industry in the Community is being stretched on the rack of the common agricultural policy.