natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hr. formand, vor forretningsorden peger — dens skrøbeligheder i øvrigt ufortalt — med bestemmelsen i artikel 100 på det principielle forhold, at der kun findes demokrati, dér hvor mindretallet kommer til orde.
What we are saying is that in relation to the rest of Greece, outside Athens and Thessalonika, the contribution that the Commission should make — because inevit­ably there are regional differentiations and differences within Greece itself in relation to areas outside Athens and outside Thessalonika — is not 50%, but 55%.
I dette tilfælde var det oven i købet et meget stort mindretal, nemlig 8 ud af 19.
Now that, with respect, is the sum total of the Commission's proposal.
Det er i sandhed rystende, at en fortielse af deres anliggende kan blive forsøgt, som det er sket. Jeg advarer denne forsamling imod, at den i ubehag over offentlighed omkring en ikke tilbagevist kritik af vor husholdning med offentlige midler også kommer til at kompromittere sig over for demokratiske grundprincipper og sine egne love. .
If I react as an old parliamen­tarian, parliamentarians in this room will forgive me, when I say that some of the things I have heard being said in this debate in the Chamber this morning, about the effect of the Commission's proposals, can, I think, only arise from an almost total misunderstanding and misconception of what the precise effect of those proposals are.
Formanden. — Hr. Bøgh har altså stillet forslag om afvisning af sagen på grund af uantagelighed.
On the major issue, which is the principle of extending the higher European Social Fund intervention to Greece, there is general agreement in the House.
Lad os først løse dette spørgsmål, inden vi går over til andre indlæg til forretningsordenen.
Where there is disagreement — and I accept it is on an important issue, but it is basically a secondary issue — is on the single question of whether to extend the higher rate to the whole of Greece, or to exclude Athens and Thes­salonika.
De er åbenbart blevet meget ensidigt orienteret af den, hvem sagen angik, nemlig hr. Bonde.
Now, to take account of that the Commission is supplementing its proposal with two decisions.
Jeg kan kun sige, at vi i budgetudvalget — og jeg medtager også de medlemmer, der stillede sig afvisende over for dette eller hint punkt i betænkningen — var helt indforståede med, at vores formand, hr. Lange, i dag forelægger dette forslag til overslag for Parlamentet.
First of all, there is one intended to ensure the use of all — and I emphasize the word 'all', — the Community's financial instru­ments to accelerate the setting up of training facilities in the less­developed regions themselves.
Da kan ikke var villig til at gøre det mundtligt her, var udvalget af den mening, at betænkningen så i overensstemmelse med forretningsordenen skulle forelægges af formanden.
I think, with respect, that this takes care of the point that has been made, namely that so much of the mechanism for operating the Social Fund is situated in these two areas.
Men jeg undrer mig over den profetiske gave hos medlemmer, der slet ikke ved, hvad den nu fungerende ordfører vil sige. Det burde de dog først afvente, før de drager så mærkværdige konklusioner.
We would be in a difficult position if we had to follow the lines advocated in the draft resolu­tion before the House for two reasons: first, the drift of the amendment would seem to suggest that Community assistance should not make any distinc­tions in regard to the particular features and regional differentiations within Greece itself and especially that we should not take account of the need to ease the pressure in the areas in question to the benefit of the less­favoured areas of the country.
Der er blot tale om en stribe tal, nogle millioner, som man jonglerer med i den blå luft.
Secondly, and this is another real difficulty for us, if the amendment were to be adopted it would deter the
Denne betækning gennemgår hver konto og påviser klart, at budgettet er meget dunkelt, meget dårligt oplyst. Et dårligt grundlag at træffe beslutning på, et løst og lukket budget, som åbner mulighed for misbrug.
I was interested, if I may say in conclusion on this part, to see that the draft resolution puts the case for an adjustment of the financial allocation to the Social Fund in order to take account, among other things, of increased expenditure in respect of Greece.
Hvis dette havde været forslag til en dansk
I fully share the views of the House on this point.
Hans
I confirm
Formanden. — Hr. Nyborg har ordet.
Richard that it is my intention, as I have told the House before, to request a substantial increase in the fund's budget for the next financial year.
Nyborg. — Hr. formand, først vil jeg gerne sige, at det forslag, som hr. Bøgh bragte frem, og som vi alle rede har stemt om, ikke var relevant, idet artikel 84 i forretningsordenen alene beskæftiger sig med ting, som er uantagelige for Parlamentet at beskæftige sig med. Derfor skulle vi for så vidt ingen afstemning have haft, men o.k. — det er sket.
So, Mr President, on the points made by Mr Didò in his report and the amendment proposed by him, I can go some way towards meeting it at a practical level, but I fear I cannot go all the way with him in accepting the amendment.
begrundelse var nemlig ikke længere i overensstemmelse med forslaget til beslutning og bilaget til for slaget.
We are for that purpose trying to get additional resources, which we will undoubtedly spend in Greece.
Derfor måtte begrundelsen altså falde væk, og derfor har udvalget besluttet at give en mundtlig forelæggelse.
It is a country which will certainly come very high on the list of priorities as far as the Commission is concerned.
Dette havde han i første omgang accepteret den 23. april, men allerede den følgende dag ændrede han mening og sagde, at dette ikke længere var hans betænkning, og han kunne ikke forelægge den. Som følge deraf har udvalget gjort det, hr. Langes har meddelt.
Indeed, we not only accept this but there is evidence that we accept it, because we have increased the rate of intervention from 50% to 55%.
Patterson. — (EN) Hr. formand, der synes at være manglende kontinuitet i formandskabets afgørelser.
We shall now suspend our proceedings and resume them at 3 p.m.
Da dette punkt altså fastholdes på dagsordenen, giver jeg ordføreren ordet.
The sitting was suspended at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.)
Da hr. Rogers havde forsædet her i formiddag påpegede formanden for udvalget for forretningsordenen og for andragender, at i henhold til artikel 59 kunne denne sag ikke behandles i dag. Dette dokument blev omdelt 24 timer for forhandlingen.
We note, however, that the Committee on Agriculture would wish to go further with an increase in the budget of 2­8 million units of account.
Vi kunne have sparet os selv masser af tid, hvis De havde lyttet til mit punkt til forretningsordenen eller alternativt havde truffet afgørelse om hr. Nyborgs punkt til forretningsordenen på et tidligere tidspunkt.
I must also say, however, that the Commission is charged not only with the task of submitting proposals to the Council but also with the obligation of trying to get those proposals though the Council.
Det er nu umuligt at gennemføre denne forhandling i henhold til vor forretningsorden, så vi behøver ikke at forhandle om en udsættelse.
And I must say in all candour to the House this morning that from the current discussions at Council level it appears most unlikely that we shall be able to reach an agreement on any amount higher than that which has been proposed by the Commission.
Hr. Nyborg har allerede fremsat dette punkt.
Indeed, I should perhaps give the House a warning that the trend is even to reduce the amount that we have already got in — namely, 1 · 8 million units of account.
Formanden. — Måske var der som følge af, at der var trykt et utilstrækkelig stort oplag, ikke flere eksemplarer til omdeling i går, men betænkningen er uden tvivl omdelt normalt, i hvert fald til grupperne, for ellers ville vi ikke kunne have det store antal ændringsforslag! Forhandlingen kan altså finde sted.
We are, as I say, in the process of trying to negotiate a successful conclusion in the Council on the present proposal for 1 ■ 8 million, and to go back with a proposal for 2­8 million would not seem to us to be a sensible way of trying to get through the proposal that we have already put up.
Rogers. — (EN) Hr. formand, hr. Patterson vildleder Parlamentet.
Mr President, may I finally say a word about the debate generally.
Jeg traf overhovedet ingen afgørelse og foretog ikke nogen kvalitativ vurdering i formiddags.
I hope that when honourable Members have had an opportunity of looking at what I have said, particularly in relation to the amendment in Mr Didò's report, I hope they will not feel the
Ordføreren er underkastet udvalgets afgørelser.
President. — The next item is the report (Doc.
Jeg vil forsøge at aflægge beretning i over ensstemmelse hermed.
I call Mr Bøgh to speak on a point of order.
Budgetudvalget ville praktisk talt bibeholde tallet fra 1981, for det første som diskussionsgrundlag for præsidiet, men også på forslag af sin dengang endnu fungerende ordfører.
This budget does not meet the most elementary requirements it would face in our country, and we have therefore referred it to the Danish Government Auditors, as our taxpayers money is involved.
Udgangsposition var altså et beløb på godt 199 eller 215 millioner regningsenheder.
We therefore believe that this report should be rejected, and I cannot imagine that any reasonable Member in this House today will oppose a thorough investigation of the matter.
For året 1981 reducerede vi fra lidt under 210 til lidt under 200 millioner regningsenheder. Dette spil kunne gentages i år.
My reason for doing so is that when this report was drawn up there were infringements of the rights of the minority and, in particular, of Parliament's Rules of Procedure, which Parliament should not allow to happen.
Derefter er præsidiet i henhold til artikel 49 i den gamle forretningsorden herre over organisationsplanen og stillingsfortegnelsen, dvs. det har det sidste ord.
My first point was the refusal to print the rapporteur's report examining the estimates line by line and criticizing the impossibility of supervising the use of public funds.
Budgetudvalget modtager præsidiets forslag, gennemgår dem, meddeler præsidiet sin stilling dertil.
My second objection is that Rule 100(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which states that if the committee is not unanimous the report shall also summarize the views of the minority, was ignored.
Præsidiet kan så træffe afgørelsen i overensstemmelse med sit ansvar og sin egen overbevisning. Det er forklaringen på teksten til punkt 2 i forslaget til beslutning.
Mr President, regardless of their other failings, our Rules of Procedure do make the fundamental point in Rule 100 that democracy can exist only where the minority is also allowed a say.
Men budgetudvalget har erklæret sig indforstået med, at der må bestå forfremmelsesmuligheder, og disse forfremmelsesmuligheder er mulige ved at omdanne stillinger.
I would warn this House that, in its fear of publicity for unrefuted criticisms of its handling of public funds, it is in danger of disregarding fundamental democratic principles and its own rules.
Præsidiet har nu stillet et sådant forslag: 16 opnormeringer og 4 omdannelser af stillinger.
President. — Mr Bøgh has therefore just moved the previous question.
Ordføreren hr. Bonde havde set sig ude af stand til overhovedet at tage stilling til de enkelte poster på budgettet.
Let us settle this point first, and then I shall admit other points of order.
Hertil er at bemærke — og det kan jeg sige på alles vegne, dvs. ikke for et mindretal og ikke i modsætning til et flertal — at der i det hele i bud getudvalget rådede utilfredshed over, at de indelté krav ikke var tilstrækkeligt begrundet og gennemførlige.
I am very surprised at what Mr Bøgh and Mrs Hammerich have had to say, particularly as neither of them was ever present in committee.
Det må præsidiet under alle omstændigheder tage hensyn til ved fremtidige forslag, ellers kan det virkelig engang komme til en alvorlig konflikt.
Obviously, the information they have been given by the person directly concerned, Mr Bonde, was very one-sided.
Budgetudvalgets flertal har ikke kunnet acceptere det forslag, som hr. Bonde så har stillet, nemlig at indsætte det samlede beløb på over 199 millioner ERE i artikel 100.
I can only say that we of the Committee on Budgets — including, I assume, those members who were opposed to one or other aspect of this report — fully agreed that our chairman, Mr Lange, should present these draft estimates to Parliament today.
Han var af den mening, at man bagefter kunne overføre fra artikel 100 til de enkelte budgetposter, hvis der forelå rimelig begrundelse.
The committee did not in any way deny the minority the opportunity of expressing its views. That was expressly confirmed by the committee.
Derfor altså punkt 2 med den dertil hørende kommentar, der ikke udtaler sig mod princippet angående forfremmelsesmuligheder, selv om vi ikke vil have nogen stigning i antallet af stillinger i 1982.
We constantly stressed that the committee's report would express the views of both the majority and the minority, although the rapporteur must, of course, present the majority view.
Hvis vi nemlig holder fast ved princippet og ikke vil have nogen personaleudvidelse i 1982, så må grupperne heller ikke kræve nogen personaleudvidelser ud over rammerne for 1981.
As he was not prepared to do that orally, the committee felt that the report should be presented by the chairman, as permitted by the Rules of Procedure.
Det vil med andre ord sige, at grupperne må bestræbe sig på at dække deres behov inden for rammen af det eksisterende personaleantal på immervæk næsten 2 900 eller 3 000 personer.
We must there fore make it absolutely clear that, one, we have observed the Rules of Procedure, two, we have acted legitimately and, three, we in no way sought to exclude the minority, since it has another opportunity today of making its objections and proposals for amendments known.
For så vidt består der altså ikke i denne forbindelse nogen yderligere meningsforskel.
I therefore call on the House to reject this request.
Det var for lidt for budgetudvalget, og flertallet har med større eller mindre overbevisning vedtaget igen at forsøge proceduren i dens hidtil anvendte form.
Mr Lange, chairman of the Committee on Budgets. — (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I do not really need to say anything, since Mr Langes has already said it for me.
Vi kender de vanskeligheder, der er forbundet dermed.
They should wait and see what he says before they draw such strange conclusions.
Vi ved også, at omfanget af ikke afholdte udgifter på afsluttede budgetter eventuelt vil være meget betyde ligt på Parlamentete budget.
Mrs Hammerich. — (DA) Mr President, my reason for moving the rejection of this report as inadmissible, in addition to the arguments put forward by Mr Bøgh, is that it includes no actual budget.
Jeg kan allerede her under henvisning til punkt 3 i vort forslag til beslutning erklære, at budgetudvalget er villigt til, så længe første behandling ikke er afsluttet, at skabe så megen klarhed som muligt i disse sager, der endnu ikke kan overskues i deres virkninger.
All we have is a string of figures, a few million here, a few million there, which are then juggled at random, allowing the administration to spend what it likes, while giving, the budgetary authorities no idea of the basis on which it is doing so.
Formodentlig altså på basis af administrationens forslag har præsidiet truffet sin afgørelse og er for 1981 kommet til et beløb på 215,5 millioner ERE.
The report examines each item in the budget and clearly demonstrates its obscurity.
Så blev forslaget over
A poor basis for
Det må have stået begge sider klart, at udgangspunkterne for hver part ikke kunne være endelige, men at de måtte komme til forståelse, at den ene part altså ikke så at sige kunne stille den anden et ultimatum.
Let me just add one remark: as chairman of the committee I have probably been more accommodating towards the rapporteur than was officially necessary.
Alligevel førte diskussionen til, at det første forslag, som præsidiet forelagde budgetudvalget, blev skåret ned fra i alt 215 millioner til ca. 209 millioner ERE.
asked him on bended knee to take over the report as adopted by the committee and to present the differing views of the majority and minority on the various points or on the report as a whole.
I den nuværende form er alt dette ikke helt tilfredsstillende.
The committee then acted as Mr Langes has explained.
Alt dette vil udvalget under alle omstændigheder gerne pege på.
From that point of view we should not have had a vote, but we did, and it is past history now.
Jeg vil gerne sige følgende om ændringsforslagene.
(Parliament rejected the request for referral back to committee)
Budgetudvalget vil i morgen kl. 18.00 endnu en gang tage dem op til behandling.
President. — I call Mr Patterson, who wishes to appeal to the Rules of Procedure.
Jeg kan allerede i dag sige, at det efter min opfattelse ville være bedst, hvis man forkastede alle ændringsforslag, enten de betyder yderligere nedskæringer eller yderligere forhøjelser, og lod det blive ved kompromiset.
The second point, as to whether we received the report in good time as defined in Rule 59, is open to argument, as there is some confusion as to what is meant by the report being distributed.
Her drejer det sig jo blot om et foreløbigt forslag, der kan gøre det muligt for Kommissionen til den 15. juni — derfor var det for sent at behandle denne betænkning i juni mødeperioden — at lægge det samlede forslag til et foreløbigt overslag på bordet.
A clear definition of what is meant by the distribution of a report is therefore urgently required — whether it is enough that it should have reached the political groups or whether it should be available to all Members.
Derfor må vi lade det bero ved dette foreløbige forslag — selv om det for den ene eller den anden, også for mig, betyder et utilfredsstillende kompromis.
If the latter is the case, the requirements were certainly not met in this instance, as this report was not available from Distribution yesterday evening before 7 p.m.
I de kommende uger eller måneder får vi så lejlighed til at tage tingene op til nærmere behandling og, som sagt, i givet fald forberede de påkrævede ændringer til første behandling og under første behandling formulere dem anderledes end nu i det foreløbige forslag.
But as I do not wish to be obstructive I feel we should now debate Mr Lange's report, but would make it absolutely clear that this is by way of exception and does not set a precedent.
Der blev foretaget nedskæringer af medlemmernes rejseudgifter og dagpenge, af personalets rejseudgifter, for så vidt de drejer sig om delegationer, og også for selve delegationernes vedkommende.
Mr Patterson. — Mr President, there seems to be a lack of continuity in the rulings made by the Chair. When Mr Rogers was in the chair this morning, the chairman of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Petitions pointed out that, under Rule 59, this matter could not be taken today.
Lige ledes vedrørende arbejdet i valgkredsen ved rejser inden for EØF, ikke i den egentlige valgkreds.
This document was distributed 24 hours before the debate.
Desuden blev der foretaget nedskæringer af udgifterne til leje, gas, el og opvarmning, til rengøring og vedligeholdelse.
Mr Nyborg has already made this point. I ask you now to rule definitively on Rule 59.
Endvidere har vi mod gruppernes ønske — og jeg tror i overensstemmelse med det udvidede præsidium — nedskåret det oprindelige gruppeforslag, der lød på 11 % mere end de for Parlamentet som helhed foreslåede lidt under 4,9 %.
Mr Lange, Chairman of the Committee on Budgets. — (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should
Det gælder for rejser, for delegationer osv. osv. Vi kan ikke tillade os at stå i offentlighedens øjne som en turistforening.
It was distributed to the Groups in any case, otherwise we wouldn't have this string of amendments. The debate can therefore be held.
(Bifald)
I call Mr Rogers.
Jeg tror, jeg har gjort rede for alle i udvalget repræsenterede meninger uden ved hvert enkelt punkt at have nævnt flertallets og mindretallets mening — det ville føre for vidt, hvis jeg skulle gå det igennem post for post.
like to begin by saying once again than I am sorry that the rapporteur originally appointed has felt unable to accept the decisions taken by the Committee on Budgets.
Det bør vi ikke risikere i denne sammenhæng.
The reason he gives is that this is not his report, which is true.
På præsidiets side skyldes det i første række hr. Jaquet, der har overtaget opgaven som ordfører for præsidiet og det udvidede præsidium.
However, it is not the rapporteur who holds sovereign power but the committee, and it is the committee that decides.
Det er vel noget af det sidste, vi kunne tage ansvaret for.
The rapporteur is commanded by the committee.
Udvalgene bør derimod komme overens om, at vi giver afkald på betænkninger af den slags, at vi kun udarbejder forslagene til beslutning og begrunder dem mundtligt her; dette bliver alligevel trykt, og det er tilstrækkeligt.
Where a rapporteur disagrees fundamentally with the committee's decisions, the only possible course open to him is to resign as rapporteur. Mr Bonde did not do this.
Vi er et politisk organ og har ikke nogen videnskabelig opgave at løse, men vi skal udvikle og fuldbyrde en politisk vilje.
But his refusal to accept the report and to defend it led the committee, as I said just now, to entrust its chairman
Desværre har hr. Bonde ikke set sig i stand til her at forelægge denne betænkning.
Mr Rogers. — Mr President, Mr Patterson is misleading the House.
Dette ville igen have ført til det, hr. Nyborg allerede har antydet her.
I did not rule in any way and made no qualitative assessment at all this morning.
Dette kunne vi efter vor mening og efter omstændighederne ikke have taget ansvaret for.
I repeat: I regret this and, as I said just now, as committee chairman I have perhaps done more than my duty calls for.
Det arbejde, hr. Bonde har påbegyndt, må man absolut respektere.
I shall endeavour to obey this rule in my presentation.
Det har.jeg heller ikke nogen indvendinger imod — kun mod den måde, hvorpå han har forsøgt at præsentere og gennemføre dette, der nu engang ikke har vundet udvalgets bifald — og det må en ordfører affinde sig med.
First, a few words on the position from which we begin: in accordance with agreements between the Bureau and the Enlarged Bureau on the one hand and the Committee on Budgets on the other, we must for the first time proceed on the basis of Rules 49 and 50 of the old Rules of Procedure.
Mine damer og herrer, stem på torsdag for dette kompromis.
The Bureau originally submitted a draft, presumably on a proposal from the administration.
Det er ikke den endelige afgørelse, den vil først blive truffet ved første behandling af det samlede budget i oktober.
I say presumably, because under the agreements we reached in committee the administration is no longer able to express its views itself in the Committee on Budgets.
Vi får altså mulighed for at foretage alle de ændringer, vi anser for nødvendige.
At best it can make its views known through the Bureau's representative if he asks to be informed of those views.
Hr. formand, alt dette har måttet fremstilles meget tydeligt og frit.
As a basis for discussion in the Bureau and also at the suggestion of its rapporteur, the Committee on Budgets began by proposing virtually the same figure as in 1981.
Derfor måtte jeg lægge beslag på noget mere tid, end det måske i almindelighed anses for rimeligt ved forelæggelsen af en betænkning.
So we started with a figure of something more than 199 or 215m EUA. We reduced the 1981 figure from almost 210 to just under 200m EUA.
Endnu en gang mange tak for Deres tålmodighed.
It was possible to repeat this process this year.
Og hvad er så de væsentligste grunde til, at vi har valgte disse løsninger?
Under Rule 49 of the old Rules of Procedure the Bureau is responsible for the establishment plan and the list of posts.