natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Jeg vil ønske, at hun hos os alle vil give stødet til, at vi sætter de naturligvis store vanskeligheder, som vi i dag støder på, i relation til unionen af Europas folk med henblik på at beskytte deres identitet.
I hope that this moment will be for all of us an occasion to gird ourselves to face the enormous difficulties that lie in our path today and to take up once more the task — which is far from being accomplished — of uniting the peoples of Europe in the preservation of their identity.
Vanskelig hederne kan uden tvivl overvindes, hvis vi sætter vilje, arbejde og materielle ofre stærkt nok ind.
The former difficulties can undoubtedly be overcome if we are prepared to bring enough resolve, energy and material sacrifices to the task.
Unionen kræver et mere væsentligt engagement, et moment der er vanskeligt at måle.
The second task calls for a more deep lying commitment and a degree of spiritual force that is difficult to measure.
Louise Weiss har for europæerne udført et igangsætningens værk.
Louise Weiss' life and work were a mighty impulse launching her fellow Europeans along the right path.
Vi vil ære hendes klarhed og hendes forbilledlige sindsligevægt.
Let us pay tribute to her clearness of mind and to her beautiful spirit that might serve as models for all of us to imitate.
Lad os alle mindes hende.
Let us keep her memory green.
(Tilbagevisning til udvalg vedtoges)
(The House stood and observed a minute's silence)
Dagsordenen
Agenda report
Formanden. — I sit møde den 18. maj 1983 udarbejdede det udvidede præsidium det omdelte forslag til dagsorden.
President. — At its meeting of 18 May 1983 the enlarged Bureau drew up the draft agenda which has been distributed to you.
På mødet i formiddags bemyndigede gruppeformændene mig til at foreslå en række ændringer.
At their meeting this morning the chairmen of the political groups instructed me to propose to the House a number of changes to the agenda.
For så vidt angår mandag:
On Monday's agenda :
— retsudvalget anmoder om, at Vayssade-betænk-ningen (dok.
— the Legal Affairs Committee asked that the report (Doc.
1-117/83), som var sat til afstemning som pkt. 97 på forslaget til dagsorden for i dag, tilbagevises til udvalget.
1-117/83) by Mrs Vayssade, the vote on which is down on today's draft agenda under No 97, be referred back to committee.
Scrivener (L). — (FR) Hr. formand, jeg tror, at denne tekst virkelig må tilbage til udvalget, for afstemningen i udvalget fandt på ingen måde sted, som den burde; desuden er der en aldeles usammenhængende tekst, og vi ser ingen fordele i at forelægge en sådan tekst i et møde i Parlamentet, uden at vi har set på den igen.
Mrs Scrivener (L). — (FR) Mr President, I think that this report must in fact be referred back to committee because the vote in the Committee on the Environment did not take place entirely as it should ; because, in addition, the text is quite incoherent, and because there is no point in presenting such a text to Parliament without having revised it.
De ved, at tekster, der vedrører miljøet, er ganske særlig indviklede.
You are aware that these texts concerning the environment are particularly complex.
De kan meget hurtigt blive usammenhængende, som det er tilfældet her.
They can very rapidly become unintelligible, which is what would be the case here.
Foruden de formelle og proceduremæssige grunde er der altså også en principiel grund til denne tilbagevisning til udvalg.
In addition, therefore, to reasons regarding form and proce dure, there is thus a basic reason justifying this referral back to committee.
Squarcialupi (COM). — (IT) Hr. formand, at vi i mandagsmødet kan stemme om de forslag til beslutning, hvorom forhandlingen er afsluttet, er naturligvis glimrende; men vi står over for mere end hundrede ændringsforslag, og nogle af dem kræver en dybt gående overvejelse.
Mrs Squarcialupi (COM). — (IT) Mr President, it is undoubtedly a very fine thing that we can vote during Monday's sitting on the motions for a resolution on which discussion has been closed ; however, we are faced with a hundred or so amendments, some of which require careful thought.
Jeg mener derfor, at det vil være fornuftigere at give grupperne og de enkelte medlemmer tid til at vurdere disse ændringsforslag.
I therefore consider that it would be more reasonable to allow Groups and individual Members the time to assess these amend ments.
Nr. 1­300/3 det britiske valgsystem skal ændres, for så havde han ikke den slags vanskeligheder.
Parliament ought not to respond to the type of massive lobbying that has gone on in the case of this report by giving in to it.
Det forekommer mig at være af betydning.
With regard to Tuesday's agenda :
— vedrørende Schieler­betænkningen (dok.
— I have a request from the Political Affairs Committee that the debate on the Schieler report (Doc.
1­160/ 83), der står på dagsordenen under pkt. 118, har jeg fra retsudvalget modtaget en anmodning om, at forhandlingen udsættes til torsdag.
1-160/83), entered as Item No 118, be held over until Thursday.
(Udsættelsen vedtoges)
(Parliament agreed to this request)
Klepsch (PPE). — (DE) Vil De være så venlig at fastslå, hvornår der skal forhandles om det på torsdag?
President. — When a report is sent back to the committee concerned, Mr Collins, it is up to the committee to decide when it should be reintroduced.
Johnson (ED). — (EN) Hr. formand, vil De gøre det klart, at formålet med denne frist bare er, at teksten kan bringes i orden og ændringsforslagene ordentligt forberedt?
Mr Klepsch (PPE). — (DE) Could you please tell us when this report will be debated on Thursday ?
Formanden. — Det er rigtigt, men jeg kan ikke be­stemme, hvad tidsfristen skal være.
President. — Correct, but I cannot decide what the time limit should be.
Det er udvalgets sag.
That is up to the committee.
Patterson (ED). — (EN) Hr.. formand, da hr. Pearce spurgte Dem om Ceravolo­betænkningen, sagde De, at den var vi ikke kommet til.
Mr Patterson (ED). — Mr President, when Mr Pearce, my colleague, asked you about the Ceravolo report you said we had not come to that yet.
Jeg funderer over, om vi ikke kan komme til den nu, eftersom hr. Bange­mann valgte at lave partipolitik på et alvorligt proce­duremæssigt spørgsmål.
I was wondering whether we can now come to it because Mr Bangemann chose to make a party political point about a serious procedural problem.
Det er fordi det foreliggende forslag tildeler taletiden efter dage og ikke, i henhold til artikel 65, efter debatter, at vi kommer i den situa­tion, at en lang række vigtige drøftelser skal presses ind her om mandagen ...
It is because the proposal in front of us allocates speaking time by days and not according to the Rule 65 by debates that we arrive at the situation where a large number of impor tant debates have to be crammed into this Monday...
Vi kommer tilbage til det, og når De så rækker hånden op, får De ordet.
So we will come back to that point and if you then raise your hand you will be called to speak.
Pearce (ED). — (EN) Før vi forlader mandagens dagsorden, vil jeg gerne give udtryk for betydelig uro over den tid, vi har til rådighed til Ceravolo­betænk­ningen.
Mr Pearce (ED). — Before you leave Monday's business, I would like to express considerable disquiet about the time available to us for the Ceravolo report.
Der er mange opfattelser af sagen, både i min gruppe og overalt i forsamlingen, og som det bliver tilrettelagt nu, vil jeg på grund af den taletid, min gruppe får, ikke kunne tale om den.
There are many views on this subject, both in my group and across the House, and the way it is working out I will not be able to speak on it because of the allocation of speaking time in my group.
Og dog er der i min valgkreds i Det forenede Kongerige 3 000 mennesker, der står over for at miste deres arbejde på grund af denne forordning.
Yet it is in my constituency in the UK that 3 000 people stand to lose their jobs because of this regulation.
Jeg foreslår derfor, at der bliver fundet en eller anden udvej for at udvide tale­tiden, enten ved at lade forhandlingen fortsætte til i morgen eller ved at bytte rundt på taletiden mellem grupperne, så de af os, der har direkte vælgerinte­resser forbundet med dette, får en chance for at frem­sætte deres synspunkter.
I therefote propose that some means be found to extend the speaking time, either by letting the debates continue over until tomorrow or by switching speaking time between groups so that those of us that have a direct constituency interest in this have a chance to put their point of v¡ew forward.
Ellers er det at gøre grin med Parlamentet.
Otherwise it makes a mockery of Parliament.
Formanden. — Jeg tror ikke, vi er nået så vidt endnu.
President. — I do not think we have arrived at that point yet.
Sherlock (ED). — (EN) Måske jeg stadig kunne følge mandagens dagsorden op og henvise til Van Hemel­donck­betænkningén, som jeg er sikker på at et flertal i forsamlingen gerne vil hjælpe igennem Parlamentet for at bidrage til miljøministrenes møde senere i denne måned.
Mr Sherlock (ED). — If I could follow up Monday's agenda and refer to the Van Hemeldonck report which I am sure a majority of this House would like to see helped through the Parliament to help the meeting of the Environment Ministers later this month.
Men er materialet — det var vist det, der bekymrede fru Squarcialupi — parat, så vi kan både forhandle og stemme om det i aften?
But is the material — as I think Mrs Squarcialupi feared — ready for us to proceed both to debate and vote upon this tonight ?
Jeg er sikker på, at det er forsamlingens ønske at gøre det, hvis vi kan.
I am sure it is the wish of the House so to do if we can.
Videre for så vidt angår mødet tirsdag: von der Vring (S). — (DE) Hr. formand, på manda­gens dagsorden står der endnu to betænkninger med efterfølgende afstemning.
Mr von der Vring (S). — (DE) Mr President, Monday's agenda, includes two other reports to be
Sir Fred Catherwood på, at betænkningen bliver lægge megen vægt behandlet.
Sir Fred Catherwood (ED). — Mr President, we would like to propose in a polite way to colleagues that this be removed from the agenda not to make a demand. That is all.
ingen ønsker at kommentere det, og så er sagen ganske klar.
This statement will not be followed by a debate.
Men så længe man ikke har afgivet erklæringen, vil vi ikke sige, at vi ikke har nogen kommentarer til den.
I would have liked Parliament to have debated it in March, but it was unfortunately postponed at the Conservatives' request.
Vi vil gerne have, at der afsættes tid til det.
In the three months that have elapsed everyone has had time to read it.
Hvad ændringsforslagene angår, vil vi ikke spilde megen ud, for med undtagelse af fire eller fem er samdige 119 ændringsforslag endnu en gang behandlet i landbrugsudvalget, og dermed blev der skabt klarhed.
Sir Fred Catherwood (ED). — My group would rather like to make room for a debate under Rule 40 because we do not like the idea that the Council comes out with something and no one can comment upon it at all.
Jeg vil derfor bede om, at dette punkt bliver stående på dagsordenen.
It may be that no one wants to comment and that it is absolutely clear.
Formanden. — De er i Deres fulde ret til at påberåbe Dem artikel 40 til den ende, og jeg må acceptere Deres anmodning.
President. — You are fully entitled to invoke Rule 40 for that purpose, so I have to accept your request.
Griffiths (S). — (EN) Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne tale for tilbagevisning af Dalsass-betænkningen, specielt på baggrund af retsudvalgets udtalelse.
It will not take long to deal with the amendments ; all but five of the 119 proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Committee on Agriculture, so they are now clear.
Den mundtlige forespørgsel ril Rådet af Maffre-Baugé for gruppen af kommunister og beslægtede om ordningen for frugt og grønsager, der oprindelig indgik i Colleselli-betænkningen, er nu blevet ændret til et spørgsmål til Rådet, fordi Rådet ikke var i stand til at svare under Colleselli-forhandlingen.
The oral question to the Council by Mr Maffre-Baugé, on behalf of the Communist and Allies Group, on the regulation for fruits and vegetables originally included in the Colleselli report, has now been transformed into an oral question to the Council because the Council was not able to reply during the Colleselli debate.
Jeg håber ikke, der er nogen bemærkninger til det forslag.
I hope there are no remarks on that proposal.
Onsdag:
Wednesday :
— Den europæiske demokratiske gruppe anmoder om, at den anden Dalsass-betænkning (dok.
The European Democratic Group demands the with drawal of the second Dalsass report (Doc.
1-240/83) om ethanol, pkt. 92, tages af dagsordenen.
1-240/83) on ethyl alcohol, Item No 92.
Jeg så gerne, at ordføreren for landbrugsudvalget, ordføreren for udtalelsen fra retsudvalget og embedsmænd fra Kommissionen mødtes for at rede trådene ud, således at der kan komme en betænkning til Parlamentet, der falder ind under traktatens juridiske rammer.
What I would like to see is the rapporteur of the Committee on Agriculture, the draftsman of the opinion for the Legal Affairs Committee and the staff of the Commission meeting together to hammer out this problem, so that a report can come to Parliament which is within the legal terms of the Treaty.
Jeg finder det latterligt, at vi skal stemme om Dalsass-betænkningen, når et af Parlamentets udvalg siger, at den ikke har juridisk gyldighed.
I think it is ridiculous that we can be voting on the Dalsass report when one of Parliament's committees says that it does not have legal validity.
Sir Fred Catherwood (ED). — (EN) Hr. formand, jeg vil nødig sige til kollegerne her i Parlamentet, at vor gruppe forlanger noget.
Sir Fred Catherwood (ED). — Mr President, I would not like to say to colleagues in this Parliament that our group demands anything.
Vi forelægger simpelt hen spørgsmålet for kollegerne.
We simply put the case to our colleagues.
Vi beder Dem overveje Dalsassbetænkningen og se, om den ikke kan udsættes, først og fremmest fordi vi forstår på ordføreren, at han ikke fandt, at det havde nogen særlig hast.
We do ask them to consider the Dalsass report and see whether it could not be postponed, first of all because we understand from the rapporteur that he did not feel that there was any particular urgency.
Det var derfor, den blev udsat til nu.
That was the reason it was postponed until this time.
Hvis det ikke hastede ' sidste måned, haster det heller ikke så meget i denne måned.
If it was not urgent last month, it is not all that urgent this month.
Formanden. — Videre vedrørende onsdag:
(Parliament Democratic rejected the request by the Group)
For det andet forstår vi også,. at der er nogle væsentlige juridiske indvendinger fra retsudvalget, som vi mener bør drøftes yderligere i landbrugsudvalget, før sagen kommer på.
Secondly, we do also understand that there are somesubstantial legal objections by the Legal Affairs Committee which we feel should be discussed further by the Committee on Agriculture before this is brought up.
— kl. 9 vil Kommissionen afgive en erklæring om resultaterne af Williamsburg.
President. — Still on the Wednesday sitting : at 9 a.m. the Commission will make a statement on the outcome of the Williamsburg Summit.
Denne erklæring vil blive efterfulgt af en forhandling af maksimalt en times varighed.
This statement will be followed by a debate which will last a maximum of one hour.
For det tredje vil vi gerne skaffe tid til en forhandling om topmødet i Williamsburg.
Thirdly, we would like to make time for a debate on the Williamsburg Summit.
Det mener vi er en hastesag, og hvis det tager to timer at stemme — og det forstår vi, det vil — synes vi, at de to timer kan bruges fornuftigere på topmødet i Williamsburg, som er af noget større betydning for enhver end Dalsassbetænkningen.
We do think that that is urgent and if this takes two hours to vote — as we understand it will — we think that that two hours would be better spent on the Williamsburg Summit which matters a great deal more to anyone than the Dalsass report.
— En mundtlig forespørgsel af Møller for den europæiske demokratiske gruppe om de af Sverige trufne protektionistiske foranstaltninger er ændret dl et spørgsmål til spørgetiden og vil blive behandlet allerførst.
An oral question by Mr Møller, on behalf of the European Democratic Group, on protectionist measures taken by Sweden has been converted into a question to the Commission for Question Time and will be taken as the first of the questions to the Commission.
Har De et forslag at forelægge os, hr. formand, om hvordan vi kan klare det? Det håber jeg De har.
But if you do not actually demand it, it will simply remain on the agenda, I understand.
Nr. 1-300/5 dede præsidium har foreslået til behandling på man dagens, tirsdagens og de andre dagsordener.
No 1-300/5
Seefeld (S), formand for transportudvalget. — (DE) Hr. formand, på dagsordenen for torsdag står under pkt. 67 betænkning af Martin om et forsøgsprogram vedrørende transportinfrastruktur.
Sir James Scott-Hopkins (ED). — I was wondering, Mr President, following the remarks of Sir Fred Catherwood, whether or not there would be an opportunity to debate the Williamsburg meeting and its outcome.
Lidt længere nede ser De under pkt. 132 betænkning af Vandewiele om finansiering af en tunnel under Kanalen.
Have you got a proposal to put before the House, Mr President, as to how we can encompass that particular objective ? I hope you have.
Det er typisk transportinfrastruktur, og det ville måske være fornuftigt straks at behandle denne betænkning i tilslutning til hr. Martins.
I would suggest, in fact, that the speaking time provided for Monday's agenda be allocated in toto to the Ceravolo report and that if it is not possible for groups to use up their speaking time today, they be allowed to continue tomorrow.
Det er hr. Vandewiele i øvrigt indforstået med.
In other words, I propose that Mr Pearce's suggestion that the debate be allowed to carry over to tomorrow be adopted.
Bortset herfra har vi taget en afstemning om Vays-sade-betænkningen samt Hooper-betænkningen af dagsordenen.
Apart from that, we have removed from the agenda the vote on the Vayssade report as well as the Hooper report.
Det betyder, at der i modsætning til, hvad vi oprindelig besluttede, nu er ekstra taletid til rådighed. Om De får den fra Deres gruppe eller ikke, er Deres problem, ikke mit.
That means that, as against what was originally decided, there is now additional speaking time avail able.
Jeg mener, det er den rigtige måde et løse dette problem på.
I think that is the way to solve this problem.
I lyset af de beslutninger, der er truffet, er der tilstrækkelig taletid til de betænkninger, der nu er på dagsordenen, og jeg foreslår ikke nogen anden fordeling end den, der er forudset i øjeblikket.
In the light of the decisions taken there is sufficient speaking time for the reports now on our agenda, and I would not propose any other allocation than the one provided for at the moment.
Den således ændrede dags orden vedtoges) (')
(Parliament agreed to this request and adopted the draft agenda thus amended)^-)
Formanden. — I overensstemmelse med artikel 65 i forretningsordenen foreslår jeg, at taletiden begrænses som anført i bulletinen.
Mr Pearce (ED). — Mr President, I suppose you are saying that the speaking time allocated to the groups in the draft agenda would be increased to take up the time saved by the absence of one of the votes and by the fact that Miss Hooper will not be making a rapporteur's statement.
Pearce (ED). — (EN) Hr. formand, jeg formoder, De siger, at taletiden, der er tildelt grupperne i udkastet til dagsorden, vil blive forøget med den tid, der spares, fordi en af afstemningerne falder bort, og fordi frk. Hooper ikke vil komme med en ordfører tale.
President. — Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Procedure, I propose to the House that speaking time be allocated as set out in the Bulletin.
Jeg støtter det, hr. Patterson sagde.
I support what Mr Patterson said.
Desuden må jeg lige sige til hr. Bangemann, på baggrund af det, han sagde om mig, at fordelen ved vort valgsystem er, at vi kan støtte lokale interesser på en måde, som hans system ikke giver folk fra hans land mulighed for, og jeg har til hensigt at benytte mig af den ret.
Further, I must just say to Mr Bangemann, in view of what he said about me, that the virtue of our electoral system is that we are able to support local interests in a way which his system denies to people from his country, and I intend to exercise that right.
Formanden. — Hr. Pearce, for det første, eftersom vi har strøget et par betænkninger, behøver ordførerne mindre tid, eftersom der er færre af dem.
President. — Mr Pearce, first of all, as we have deleted a few reports, the rapporteurs need less time because there are fewer of them.
Kommissionen skal også bruge mindre tid, så som følge af vor beslutning vil den oprindelige taletid på 60 minutter blive forøget til ca. 90 minutter.
The Commission also needs less time, so as a consequence of our decision, the original speakingtime of 60 minutes will be increased to approximately 90 minutes.
Det betyder, at De har 50 % mere tid end oprindelig foreslået, så der er overhovedet ikke noget problem.
That means that you have 50 % more time than originally proposed, so there is no difficulty at all.
Patterson (ED). — (EN) Hr. formand, jeg er imod det forslag for mandags vedkommende. Jeg skal forklare Dem hvorfor.
Mr Patterson (ED). — Mr President, I would oppose that proposal as far as Monday is concerned.
Artikel 65 i forretningsordenen siger, at taletiden ikke skal deles op efter dage men efter forhandlinger.
Rule 65 of the Rules of Procedure says that speaking time shall not be divided up by days but by debates.
Nu er det de fleste dage belejligt at dele dagen op i store træk imellem grupperne og lade dem afgøre, hvorledes de vil fordele deres taletid på forhandlingerne. Det går helt skævt om mandagen, når vi som i dag har kontroversielle punkter på dags ordenen som f.eks. Ceravolo-betænkningen.
Now it is convenient on most days to divide the day up broadly between the groups and allow them to decide how to allocate their speaking time for the debates.
Det betyder, at grupperne bliver sat under pres i disse ting.
It means that the groups are put under pressure on these matters.
I dette tilfælde har min gruppe kun 7 minutter at fordele mellem meget omstridte og vigtige spørgsmål.
In this case my group has only 7 minutes to allocate among highly contentious and important matters.
Det, at vi har stillet 34 ændringsforslag til Ceravolobetænkningen, antyder, at det er et kontroversielt punkt.
The fact that we have tabled 34 amendments to the Ceravolo report indicates that it is a controversial item.
Jeg synes, det ville være meget bedre, om præsidiet faktisk holdt sig til forretningsordenen og tildelte taletid efter forhandling for mandagsens vedkommende.
I would suggest that it would be much better if the Bureau actually adhered to the Rules of Procedure and allocated speaking time by debate when it comes to Monday.
Bangemann (L). — (EN) Hr. formand, for det første vil jeg gerne komme med en generel bemærkning til det ærede medlem fra Cheshire West, for jeg mener faktisk, han har uret.
Mr Bangemann (L). — Mr President, I wanted first of all to address a general remark to the Honourable Member from Cheshire West, because I do believe that he is wrong.
Det nuværende system giver enhver gruppe lejlighed til at vælge frit blandt punkterne på dagsordenen. Hvis vi skulle tildele taletiden til hvert punkt, ville vi tvinge en gruppe til at tale om spørgsmål, som måske ikke var vigtige for den gruppe.
The present system gives every group the opportunity to choose freely between the items on the agenda.
(') Frist for at stille ændringsforslag: se protokollen.
(2) Deadline for tabling amendments : see Minutes.
Sir Fred Catherwood forlænget den.
Out of fairness, I should like all regions to be included in the distribution of funds.
Vi ser ikke nogen grund til, at hr. Bangemann blander valgsystemet ind i det, hvis det ikke er fordi hans parti vil lide nederlag på torsdag.
Wc sec no reason why Mr Bangemann should bring electoral systems into it except that his party is about to be defeated on Thursday.
Kommissionens reaktion på Parlamentets udtalelser
Action taken on the opinions of