natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Vi er en fælles budgetmyndighed, og når Fælles skabet står over for muligheden af ikke at have et budget for det følgende år, kunne man forvente, at budgetmyndighedens to grene ville sætte sig sammen og søge at finde en løsning.
We are a joint budgetary authority and when the Community is facing the possibility of no budget for the ensuing year, one would expect the two arms of the budgetary authority to get together and try to seek a solution.
At Rådet ikke mødes i morgen i Strasbourg viser, at det ikke tager sin stilling som en del af budgetmyndigheden alvorlig nok.
The failure of the Council to meet tomorrow in Strasbourg shows that it does not take its position as part of the budgetary authority seriously enough.
Det er vigtigt for medlemmerne af denne forsamling, når de på torsdag skal beslutte sig til at stemme for eller imod forkastelse, at overveje alternativet.
It is important for Members of this House, when deciding on Thursday whether or not to vote for rejection, to consider the alternative.
Det næsten sikre alternativ, budgetudvalget og vi alle står overfor, er at gentage ændringsforslagene fra førstebehandlingen.
The almost certain alternative faced by the Committee on Budgets and all of us is to repeat the first reading amendments.
Der kan ikke være megen tvivl om, tror jeg, at de ændringsforslag, der fik 218 stemmer i første omgang, så godt som helt sikkert ville de sam me stemmer i anden omgang.
I have little doubt that those amendments that received 218 votes first time round would almost certainly receive those same votes the second time round.
Vi har helt klart fået at vide, at hvis disse ændringsforslag blev gentaget, så ville budgettet enten ikke kunne underskrives af Par lamentets formand eller være uigennemførligt for Kommissionen.
We have been told quite clearly that if those amendments were repeated, then the budget would either be unsignable by the President of Parliament or would be unexecutable by the Commission.
I begge tilfælde ville vi have et om stridt budget, og vi ville under alle omstændigheder komme til at stå over for en ordning med tolvtedele.
In either case we would have a disputed budget and we would be on to a system of twelfths anyway.
Jeg personligt er derfor ikke i tvivl om, at vi på den ene eller anden måde bevæger os henimod en situation, hvor vi skal have tolvtedelene.
I personally, therefore, have no doubt that in one way or another we are moving towards a situation where we must have the twelfths.
Det er åbenlyst, at en forkastelse er den klare vej ud, og et omstridt budget er juridisk set uklart.
It is obvious that a rejection is the clear way out, and a disputed budget is legally murky.
Jeg kommer derfor til den konklusion, at det er i Det europæiske Fællesskabs langsigtede interesse, at vi får et entydigt resultat af denne budgetprocedure.
I, therefore, come to the conclusion that it is in the longterm interests of the European Community that we have a clear outcome to this budgetary procedure.
Det betyder, at vi er nødt til at forkaste dette budget på tordag.
That means that we as parliamentarians are required to reject this budget on Thursday.
Barbarella (COM). - (IT) Hr. formand, vi tror ikke, at Parlamentet i den situation, der er skabt af Rådets afgørelser, har noget andet valg end at forkaste bud getforslaget for 1985.
Mrs Barbarella (COM). — (IT) Mr President, we think that, in the situation created by the decisions of the Council of Ministers, Parliament has no alternative but to reject the 1985 draft budget.
Jeg tror, at det alvorlige i dette forhold bør påpeges uden forblommede vendinger, og at Parlamentets for kastelse af budgettet bør få denne nøjagtige betydning.
I would, of course, like to join others who have pointed out that we must not blame the Irish presidency.
Den grundlæggende indvending mod dette budget er, at det ikke omfatter alle de forventede udgifter og alle de forventede indtægter for næste år.
The Irish presidency has tried very hard, I am sure, to avoid this potential conflict.
Det er et fundamentalt princip i alle budgetsystemer, som andre tale re allerede har sagt, at et budget skal være et budget for et helt år på baggrund af de bedste skøn, der haves på det tidspunkt.
However, I am afraid I must say to the President of the Budget Coun cil that I think he was misleading when he said in his speech that he believes that the Committee on Budgets did not wish to have a conciliation meeting tomorrow.
Formanden for Rådet, Kom missionen og vi alle ved, at dette budget ikke inde holder samtlige anslåede udgifter for næste år.
That is a completely incorrect understanding of what transpired last week in the Committee on Budgets.
Det, der er sket, er, at der er truffet beslutninger om at bruge penge, men der er ikke truffet nogen beslutning om, hvordan de skal finansieres.
I am certain that there was a hope in the Committee on Budgets that we would have a meeting and that some agreement would be reached.
Det er hovedsagelig, fordi en medlemstat har nægtet at fremrykke den dato, hvor nye, øgede egne indtægter vil blive indført.
Of course the Committee of Budgets wanted to send a signal to the Council to show that it sought a certain minimum step by the Council, but I really do think that it is a spurious point to suggest that the Council could not come because it never received an invitation.
Rådsformanden henviste til Rådets forpligtelse til at skaffe dækning til næste år for de ekstra udgifter.
The fundamental objection to this budget is that it does not include all the anticipated expenditure and all the anticipated required income for next year.
Han kan ikke både blæse og have mel i munden.
It is a fundamental principle of all budgetary systems, as
Den er meget overraskende — må jeg oprigtig talt sige — den argumentation, som Rådets repræsentant, dets formand hr. O'Keeffe, som jeg i øvrigt nærer en dyb personlig agtelse for, anvendte for lidt siden.
The Council has in fact refused to consider any gen uine modification that would make this draft, which was presented to us in Ocotober, into a proper budget, by which I mean a budget covering 12 months' income and expenditure.
Barbarella af disse udgifter — altså obligatoriske udgifter — kunne Rådet ikke opføre dem på budgettet.
I think that the gravity of this fact must be denounced in no uncertain terms, and that the rejection of the budget by Parliament must mean precisely that.
Han tilføjede i øvrigt — og dette er Rådets og ikke alene hr. O'Keeffes argumentation — at Rådet dog var rede til at tage hensyn til disse udgifter i de kommende måneder om nødvendigt.
— I say all— the expenditure that follows compulsorily from the regulations in force or from decisions which have in any event already been taken.
Lad mig få klart at vide, om formanden for Rådet har mandat til at forhandle om et budget for tolv måneder. Jeg tror, at hans ærlige svar bestemt vil være »nej«.
He told us that, since there is not at present a legal basis for covering this expenditure — expenditure that is compulsory — the Council could not include it in the budget.
Og så kan man ikke komme og sige med uklare og tvetydige argumenter, at hvis Parlamentet havde udvist en vis beredvillighed, så kunne tingene være gået anderledes. des.
He furthermore added — and this is the line taken by the Council, not only by President O'Keeffe — that the Council would in any event be ready to take this expenditure into account, if necessary, in the months to come.
Nu siger man kort sagt til os, at dette retsgrundlag, som Rådet ikke vil finde i dag, at det vil det måske finde om nogle måneder.
Now what he is saying in effect is that the Council, which cannot find the legal basis today, would find it
Jeg tror, at vi i betragtning af denne situation er for pligtet til at forkaste budgettet, ikke fordi — gentager jeg — Rådet ikke er kommet, men fordi Rådet til syvende og sidst klart har afvist alle Europa-Parlamentets væsentlige krav.
It is in this political context that we see Parliament's rejection of the budget. It is certainly not, Mr O'Keeffe, a peevish gesture by Parliament because the Council is not represented here and now at Strasbourg.
Og det må faktisk også understreges, at Parlamentets krav var og er et uomgængeligt nødvendigt minimum for at få Fællesskabet til at overleve.
I think this needs to be very clear: we are not rejecting the budget because the Council and the Ministers are not here today.
For mange ministre — og det har vi set meget klart under det samråd, som Europa-Parlamentets delega tion har haft med Rådet — betyder den manglende opførelse af alle de i dag forudselige udgifter faktisk en ren og skær nedskæring af udgifterne og i virkelig heden af landbrugsudgifterne.
And I think another point also should be made clear, which seems very surprising to mc: it is not true that Parliament, or even earlier, the Committee on Budgets, did not leave doors open for a further discussion with the Council after the Brussels conciliation. The decision to reject was only taken by the Committee on Budgets yesterday eve ning.
Men lad mig fremsætte en anden kommentar: jeg tror ikke, at vi kan diskutere budgetspørgsmålet uden at henvise til spørgsmålet om den såkaldte »budgetdisciplin«. Vi ved godt, at man vedtog en tekst i Dublin; denne tekst har formanden for Europa-Parlamentet , hr. Pflimlin, under møderne med Rådet anset for uacceptabel.
Parliament was still available. Otherwise I should like to know what is the meaning of this late meeting of the 3 presidents, which should take place this after noon.
Jeg tror, at vi alle her i mødesalen er bevidste om, at en forkastelse er en vanskelig afgørelse, og at denne afgørelse skal træffes i fuld bevidsthed om de konsekvenser, den har, og om dens alvorlige karakter.
The specious nature of this kind of reasoning is of course obvious, and we all well know what lies beneath it, which is the real motive behind the Council's position where the failure to include a great deal of expenditure is con cerned.
Jeg tror, at det må siges meget klart, at vi overhovedet ikke bestrider, at der er et problem med land brugsudgifterne, og at dette problem må løses hurtigst muligt. Det, vi afviser, er, at dette problem kan tages op og løses på denne måde.
For many ministers — and we have seen this very clearly during the conciliation process between the European Parliamentary delegation and the Council of Minister — the non-inclusion of all the expenditure that is today forseeable means, in fact, a cut in expenditure pure and simple and, it goes without say ing, a cut mainly in agricultural expenditure.
Hvad der kort sagt fore kommer os nødvendigt, er ikke små regnskabsfil", er ikke små forhandlingskneb, men en seriøs gendrøftelse af to præcise punkter, nemlig hvad landbrugssektorens funktion skal bære i sammenhæng med Fælles skabets økonomi i 80'erne, og derfor også hvilken plads denne sektor skal have, som et led i Fællesskabets nye indgreb, i Europas politiske og økonomiske genopsving.
I think that, the situation being as it is, we are under an obligation to reject the budget; not because — and I say this again — the Council has not come, but because the Council of Ministers has clearly and very definitely rejected all of the European Parliament's essential requests.
Derfor kan vi ikke acceptere den halv kvalte, blodløse, sygeligt stive vision af Europa, der dukker frem af Rådets budgetforslag.
And, in fact, it should also be emphasized that Parliament's requests were and are the indispensable minimum for the survival of the Community.
Vi mener dog, at det i situation, som er bestemt i forvejen af andre, er rimeligt, at Europa-Parlamentet forkaster dette budgetforslag af to væsentlige grunde : for at påpege, at situationen ikke kan fortsætte på denne måde og samtidig for at lade en dør stå åben for at skabe nye betingelser gennem et budgetforslag, der opfylder grundlæggende krav — gentager jeg — for Europas overlevelse og forhåbentlig for dets gen opsving.
I think it should be said very clearly that we do not dispute in any way the fact that there is a problem where agricultural expenditure is concerned, and that this problem should be solved as quickly as possible.
I denne politiske sammenhæng skal Parlamentets for kastelse af budgettet efter for opfattelse ses.
What we do not accept is that this serious problem can be dealt with and solved in this way.
Det er bestemt ikke, hr. O'Keeffe, en anfald af hidsighed fra Parlamentets side over, at Rådet ikke er repræsenteret her i Strasbourg nu. Jeg tror, at dette må stå meget klart: vi forkaster ikke budgettet, fordi Rådet og mi nistrene ikke er her i dag.
What we consider necessary, instead of little accounting tricks or crafty little legal loopholes, is a serious re-discussion of two precise points; namely, what should be the function of the agricultural sector in the context of the Community's economy in the '80s, and, hence, what should be the dimension of this sector, in the framework of new actions by the Community and of the political and economic recovery of Europe.
Og jeg tror, at også et andet punkt, som er forekommet mig meget overraskende, må klarlægges: det er ikke sandt, at Parlamentet og endnu tilligere budgetudvalget ikke har ladet døren stå åben for en yderligere forhandling med Rådet efter samrådet i Bruxelles.
It is the picture of a Community that would finish up with a substantially reduced common agricultural policy, and with the elimination of that nucleus of structural measures which are necessary for the
Scrivener (L). — (FR) Hr. formand, kære kolleger, jeg vil først og fremmest takke ordføreren, hr. Fich, for det udførte arbejde og for den saglighed, hvormed
And so, by rejecting this draft budget and, more sub stantially, an attitude on the part of the Council that goes in the direction that I have just emphasized, we
Scrivener han i går aftes forelagde sine konklusioner for budget udvalget.
Parlia ment is playing no wrecker's game. I think that we are all of us aware in this Chamber that rejection is a difficult decision, and that this decision is one to be taken in full awareness of its consequences, and its serious ness.
ikke fortsætte med at tale om Fontainebleau-topmødets konklusioner, som om de var en ny bibel, der skulle gælde for alt og alle; man skal ikke regne med vor institution som deltager i en sådan frivillig sænkning af skuden.
We see Fontainebleau as having raised false hopes; we must not allow it to become the startingpoint of the disintegration of Europe as well. So let us hear no more about the conclusions of the Fontainebleau summit being the new bible from which we must all take our lead, let no-one count on this institution to join the wreckers.
Efter de foregående talere vil jeg så klart som muligt redegøre for den liberale og demokratiske gruppes holdning til dette grundlæggende spørgsmål i forbindelse med budgettet for 1985.
Following what has been said by previous speakers, I should like to state the position of the Liberal and Democratic Group on this fundamental issue of the budget for 1985 in the clearest possible terms.
I den nuværende situation virker forkastelsen af bud gettet som en foranstaltning, jet vil betegne som sund.
Under the present circumstances, I would describe rejection of the budget as a healthy measure.
Den skal i løbet af de kommende måneder gøre det muligt at blive klar over alvoren af den krise, vi gen nemlever.
It should create conditions under which the seriousness of the present crisis can be borne in upon all concerned over the coming months.
Gennem denne vågnende erkendelse håber vi, at der vil vise sig tegn på løsningsmuligheder.
This is what we can hope will come out of efforts to find solutions.
Som man ser er vor forkastelse alt andet end en negativ beslutning; tværtimod er det en ansvarsbevidst institutions valg, og institutionen er Europa-Parlamentet. tet.
Thus, this rejection will be anything but a negative decision; on the contrary, it will be a rational choice made by a responsible institution, and that institution is the European Parliament.
Den liberale og demokratiske gruppe vil stemme for den af budgetudvalget foreslåede forkastelse af bud gettet af den gode og enkle grund, at det af Rådet under andenbehandlingen fremsatte budgetforslag er uacceptabelt.
The Liberal and Democratic Group will be voting to reject the budget, as proposed by the Committee on Budgets, for the good and simple reason that the draft presented by the Council for a second reading is unacceptable.
Det er ikke med glæde i sind, hr. råd sformand, at vi slår ind på denne vej. Indtil det sidste håbede vi, at Rådet ville høre vor appel og gøre den indsats at lade afholde et samråd for at finde en løsning.
It will give us no joy, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, to adopt this course; we were hoping right up to the last that the Council would be able to respond to our appeal and make the effort to organize conciliation in the hope that a solution might ultimately be found.
På budgetudvalgets sidste møde i Bruxelles udtrykte vi os meget klart — og jeg beklager ikke at dele Deres anskuelse — De forstod udmærket og vid ste udmærket, at alene Rådet kunne afholde dette samråd: vi sagde det, selv om det ikke tilkom os.
At the last meeting of the Committee on Budgets held in Brussels — and I am afraid that I cannot share your opinion — we made ourselves very clear, you understood perfectly well, and you were fully aware that only the Council could organize this conciliation; as we said at the time, this was not our prerogative.
Tiden efter forkastelsen kommer sikkert til at udgøre den betydeligste del af vort arbejde.
Mr President, the most important part of our task has assuredly yet to come, after we have rejected this draft budget.
Det er ganske utænkeligt, at vi om nogle måneder, når Kommissionen og Rådet forelægger os et nyt forslag, vil gå med til det, vi forkaster på torsdag. Gjorde vi det, ville vi sikkert for tid og evighed ødelægge Parlamentets image.
The Commission and the Council will be bringing a new text before us in a few months, and there can be no question of our then approving what we shall have rejected on Thursday.
Derfor bør vi i dag forpligte os til under ingen omstændigheder at give efter i det, man kan kalde kampen for Fællesskabets fortsatte beståen.
Today we must therefore make a commitment that under no circumstances shall we flinch in what may fairly be described as a battle for the survival of the Community.
Alle bør være klar over, at de vigtige principper, vi i dag for svarer, vil blive forsvaret med samme styrke i de kommende måneder.
No-one must be in any doubt that the essential principles which we are defending today will be defended just as energetically over the coming months.
For så vidt angår den liberale og demokratiske gruppe, påtager vi os denne forpligtelse. telse.
We in the Liberal and Democratic Group accept that commitment.
Men lad os være klarsynede.
But let us be clear in our minds.
Under de nuværende konjunkturer ville det have været urealistisk at for vente det ideelle budget, ja blot et korrekt budget. Det forstod Parlamentet glimrende.
In the present circumstances it would have been unrealistic to expect a per fect budget, or even a reasonably satisfactory one.
Men der er grænser, vi ikke kan overskride, og de grænser falder sam men med de vigtigste principper for ethvert budget, i øvrigt ganske uanset om det er et nationalt budget eller et fællesskabsbudget, principper, der, hvis de ikke overholdes, gør, at man ikke længere står over for et egentligt budget, men er blændværk, der sande lig ikke gøør dem, der tager del deri, større.
But there are limits which we cannot allow to be exceeded, Mr President, and these are the limits determined by the essential principles which govern any budget, whether the Community's or a national budget, since, if these prin ciples are not adhered to, what one has is not a proper budget but rather a charade which brings no credit on those associated with it.
Vi vil i hvert fald ikke være med til noget sådant.
We are not prepared to be associated with this one.
Et timåneders budget — med eller uden firkantede parenteser — er ikke et budget.
A budget for ten months, with or without square brackets, is not a budget.
Et budget, der forbigår 10% af det samlede beløb, er heller ikke noget budget.
Nor is it a budget when 10% of the total is set to one side.
Hr. formand, hvis Parlamentet ikke vil acceptere, at den enste rigtige politik lider afbræk, så kan vi lige så lidt forestille os, at andre vigtige regler for medlems staternes fælles indsats skades.
Mr President, before concluding I should like to men tion that we considered that there could be no ques tion of going ahead with this rejection without know ing what impact it would have on food aid, bearing in mind the tragic situation in the Sahel countries.
Pasty (RDE). — (FR) Hr. formand, kære kolleger, med andenbehandlingen af forslaget til Fællesskabets budget for 1985 indleder vi sidste akt af et budgetdrama, der i år har afspillet sig i.total dunkelhed. Det er givet, at stykket må spilles om, og lad os håbe, at det denne gang bliver i fuldt lys.
This being the case, what value can be attached to the Council's promise to Parliament of a supplementary budget for 1985 when it is obvious that the Member States are not in agreement on either the nature or the amount of the new resources to be made available?
Ministerrådet holdt fast ved sin opfattelse og foregiver om ikke ikke at forstå Parlamentets dog ellers meget tydelige budskab, så i hvert fald ikke at ville svare på det, selv om det fremførtes meget tydeligt dels i form af stemmeafgivelsen under førstebehandlingen, dels ved parlamentsdelegationens stillingtagen på budgetsamrådsmødet.
May I just add by way of conclusion that, should the vote unfortunately go against the motion for a resolution, we in the Liberal and Democratic Group are con vinced that Parliament should not take the risky course of trying to make amendments to a draft budget which is impossible to amend.
betale mere, kan Parlamentet så slå sig til tåls med et så dårligt underbygget løfte?
We must leave the Council to take full responsibility for the consequences of such a budget.
Mangelen på et juridisk grundlag, som Rådet har gjort gældende, er kun et påskud, et falsk påskud, et dårligt alibi.
If the vote for rejection falls short of the necessary qualified majority, therefore, the Liberal and Democratic Group will vote against each and every amendment tabled.
Det, der mangler, er ikke det juridiske grundlag, men den politiske vilje til at komme ud af en vedvarende finansiel krise.
However, the question is unlikely to arise, Mr President, since the political groups have been declaring themselves unanimously in favour of rejection of this budget.
Det er Rådets pligt at skabe det fornødne juridiske grundlag.
(Applause from the Liberal and Democratic Group)
Bortset fra en klart for muleret politisk vilje er der intet, der hindrer Rådet i at indføre en mellemsats for merværdiafgiften mel lem den nuværende på 1 % og de 1,4%, der skal være gældende fra den 1. januar 1986, eller at rykke sidst nævnte tidspunkt frem.
The Council felt that it was offering Parliament a compromise with the inclusion, in square brackets, of an extra 1 315 million ECU for the EAGGF Guarantee Section.
Det vil være så meget desto nemmere for Rådet at gøre, som de nationale parlamenters ratificeringsprocedure for den nye merværdiafgift endnu ikke er indledt. Ved at undlade at gøre dette kommer Rådet til at bære det fulde ansvar for den krise, der snart vil indtræde.
In fact, however, as is made clear by the commentary accompanying this entry, this promise of funding is contingent upon the creation of new resources, but it is precisely the Council's inability to agree on these new resources that has been the problem these several months past.
Det er ikke længere en interinstitutionel krise, der sætter Rådet op mod Parlamentet i forbindelse med sidstnævntes manøvremargen eller udgifternes klassificering; det er en langt mere dybtgribende krise, idet den berører hele Fællesskabets liv og fremtid.
Mr Pasty (RDE). — (FR) Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, with the second reading of the draft budget of the Community for 1985, we approach the final act of what has been a shadow play throughout.