natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Desuden har Parlamentet klart givet udtryk for sine prioriteter, nemlig kampen mod arbejdsløsheden og kampen mod sulten i verden, og dette ser vi ikke i det forslag, der er forelagt os.
Moreover Parliament has clearly stated its priorities, namely the fight against unemployment and the fight against hunger in the world, and we do not see these things in the proposal which has been put before us.
Man må sige, at når Ministerrådet eller en del heraf holder så hårdt fast ved budgetbalancen, er det slave af én paragraf, mens det naturligvis burde være slave af samtlige paragraffer i traktaten vedrørede budgettet, idet der også her står de andre ting, som Parlamentet har krævet.
It must be said that, when the Council of Ministers, or pan of it, adheres so rigidly to balance in the budget, it becomes a slave to a single provision, where as it should of course be a slave to all the provisions of the Treaty concerned with the budget, since they con tain the other things which Parliament has demanded.
Cot (S), formand for budgetudvalget. — (FR) Hr. for mand, mine damer og herrer, kære kolleger, afstemningen om budgettet er et grundlæggende øjeblik i ethvert parlaments arbejde.
Mr Cot (S), Chairman of the Committee on Budgets. — (FR) Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, the budget vote is a fundamental event in the life of any parlia ment.
Det er det afgørende øjeblik, hvor kontrakten med den folkevalgte forsam ling indgås, det øjeblik, der markerer syntesen af et års arbejde inden for alle Fællesskabets arbejdsomraåder, og som skal tilkendegive viljen til at finansiere alle Fællesskabets aktioner.
It is the decisive moment at which the contract is concluded with the representatives of the people, the moment which should mark the conjugation of the efforts to be pursued over the coming year in all the Community's fields of activity, the moment at which the will to finance the full range of the Community's programmes should be demonstrated.
Heraf fremgår, at forkastelse af budgettet er en alvor lig handling.
Clearly, therefore, rejection of the budget is a grave matter.
Jeg vil gerne gøre Dem opmærksom på, at budgetudvalget ikke underkender alvoren af den afgørelse, som det har fundet sig foranlediget til at foreslå Dem.
Let me assure you that your Committee on Budgets does not underestimate the gravity of the decision that it is recommending to you.
Det er helt klart, at en forkastelse af budgettet med fører en række praktiske problemer.
Clearly, rejection of the budget raises a number of practical problems.
Det er allerede blevet sagt, at der kan opstå problemer på socialfondsområdet, på u-landsområdet, problemer med at få startet Esprit-programmet samt naturligvis efter en vis tid problemer med landbrugets garantisektion.
It has already been said that problems may arise in relation to the Social Fund and the developing countries, problems in getting the Esprit programme started and of course, after a time, problems in relation to the EAGGF Guarantee Section.
Men disse problemer kan løses, såfremt viljen er til stede.
But these problems can be solved if the will is there.
Jeg vil derfor gerne appellere til både Rådet, Kommissionen og mine kolleger her i salen om, når vi kommer til ordningen med de foreløbige tolvtedele, som er konsekvensen af en budgetforkastelse, at anstrenge sig for at gøre skaderne for tredjepart mindst mulige, således at man ikke rammer uskyldige folk, men at det forbliver en strid mellem Parlamentet og Rådet og ikke en strid, hvor man tager tredje part som gidsel i den ene eller den anden sammen hæng.
I therefore appeal to both the Council and the Commission and to my colleagues here in the chamber to endeavour, when the provisional twelfth system result ing from budget rejection takes effect, to minimize the damage to third parties, so that we do not hurt the innocent but keep it a conflict between Parliament and the Council — not a conflict in which third parties are taken hostage for one reason or another.
Hr. formand, vi har nu haft en fem-seks år med bud getkrise — det ene år efter det andet — og personligt havde jeg ønsket og også arbejdet for, at vi kunne få et år med budgetfred. Dette ønske ser ikke ud til at gå i opfyldelse; efter Rådets behandling af budgetforslaget måtte også jeg indse, at der ikke var noget at gøre.
You must be in no doubt that the system of provisional twelfths, which will be brought in if you adopt our motion for a resolution, does involve serious disadvantages, in that it blocks the launching of new policies and obstructs the smooth operation of existing poli cies, funding for which has to be released month by month, on a limited basis.
Cot nationalt parlament ville gå med til at forhandle på sådanne vilkår!
Needless to say, none of our national parliaments would be prepared to consider such a budget!
Men, vil man så sige, De hænger Dem i detaljer, i principper, og Fællesskabet befinder sig i en krise.
But, we shall be told, you are quibbling about details, about principles, when the Community is in a state of crisis.
Det er rigtigt, at det for os er ikke et detail-, men et principspørgsmål: budgettets etårige karakter er ud tryk for fællesskab og solidaritet.
What is true is that, as we see it, this is not a question of details but a matter of principle: budgetary provision on an annual basis is the expression of a community, of solidarity.
Det er en forpligtelse til igennem et år at præstere den nødvendige finansiering af de indgåede forpligtelser; et seksmåneders budget ville være intet mindre end en fornægtelse af selve fællesskabsbegrebet.
It is the means used to give an undertaking that the finance needed to cover commitments entered into will be provided over the coming year; a budget for ten months would be a negation of the very concept of a community.
Fra fællesskabsånden ville vi indtræde i de endeløse studehandelers tid.
Community spirit would be dissipated as we entered an era of constant haggling, an era of never-ending blackmail.
Ti må neder i 1985, hvorfor ikke seks eller otte måneder i 1986 eller 1987 i forbindelse med kortfristede tillægsbevillinger, som ville være en fornægtelse af selve fællesskabsbegrebet? lesskabsbegrebet?
Ten months for 1985? Why not six or eight months for 1986 or 1987, followed by some sort of system for doling out resources on a piecemeal basis, which would put paid to any notion of a community?
lig den soni Kommissionen og Rådet benyttede til tillægs- og ændringsbudgettet for 1984, løsningen med forskud fra medlemsstaterne efter aftale mellem regeringerne, så man kan klare situationen.
But there is a solution, the very one adopted by the Commission and the Council for the supplementary and amending budget for 1984: an intergovernmental agreement on advances from the States to meet the situation.
For øvrigt angav Kommissionen selv denne løsning i sit foreløbige budgetforslag, idet den regnede med forskud på egne indtægter.
Indeed, the Commission itself had indicated this course in its preliminary draft, which had envisaged advances on own resources.
For øvrigt er det end ikke nødvendigt at forudse et bestemt forfaldstidspunkt for visse egne indtægter for at benytte disse forskud, hvilket vi fik bevis for i forbindelse med tillægsbudgettet for 1984.
Nor is it even necessary to anticipate the certain exhaustion of own resources in order to opt for such advances, a fact made clear to us in connection with the supple mentary budget for 1984.
Jeg kunne føle mig fristet til at sige, at skal der være ulovlighed, så lad der være ulovlighed.
Moreover, I would be tempted, here, to reply: if one course is illegal, the other is even more so.
Hvis det nem lig er rigtigt, at der, som tingene står i øjeblikket, ikke findes nogen løsning, der er helt i overensstemmelse med samtlige aftaler, der er indgået efter Rom-traktaten, så viser Rådet den største foragt for de mest grundlæggende bestemmelser i vort grunddokument, nemlig traktaken, og for budgettets etårige karakter, der klart og tydeligt er nævnt i den.
While it may be true that, as matters stand, no solution is available which would be entirely consistent with all the agreements concluded subsequent to the Treaty of Rome, the Council for its part is displaying contempt for the most fundamental provisions of the Treaty, which is the basic charter of our Community, and for the principle of annuality which is spells out in unequivocal terms.
Jeg overdriver ikke i det billede, som jeg tegner af situationen.
My description of this situation is not exaggerated.
Under samrådet om budgettet fremgik det tydeligt, at en række medlemsstater betragtede Kommissionens overslag, der dannede grundlaget for budgetforslaget for 1985, som usikre, svævende og hasarderede, og de erklærede, at de sidst på året ville supplere finansieringen i nødvendigt omfang.
It became clear to us in the course of the budgetary con ciliation procedure that a number of States were of the view that the estimates made by the Commission, on the basis of which the draft budget for 1985 had been prepared, were uncertain, liable to fluctuation, of doubtful reliability, and declared that they would sup plement the funding to the extent necessary at the end of the year.
Det egentlige i sagen — og uden at røbe nogen hemmelighed har et af dets medlemmer indrømmet det — er, at vi står over for et politisk og ikke et retligt spørgsmål.
The crux of the matter — and here again I can reveal without any breach of confidence that one member of the Council admitted as much — is that the problem confronting us is political, not legal.
Det drejer sig om at finde ud af, om vi har vilje eller ej til at bevare Fællesskabet ved hjælp af dets grundlæggende redskab, det etårige budget.
The outcome hinges on whether or not we have the will to use this basic instrument, the annual budget, in the interests of preserving our Community.
Det siger noget om den tvivL der havde meldt sig i bevidstheden men hensyn til selve budgettets funktion, fordi dette budget ikke omfattede tolv måneder. Hvilket tilbageskridt i forhold til l'acquis communautaire og til Rom-traktatens ordlyd!
This will give you a fair indication of the doubts that had set in about whether it would even be possible to operate to this budget, precisely because it was not going to be capable of covering twelve months.
Vi mener — og der er den grundlæggende årsag til budgetudvalgets indstilling — at man i en krisetid som den, vi befinder os i, har brug for mere fællesskab og større solidaritet, og at Parlamentet ikke er berettiget til at lade dette budget, der er et redskab for fællesskabet og for solidariteten,· gå op i laser.
We believe — and this is the fundamental reason for the stance adopted by your Committee on Budgets — that, in a period of crisis such as the present, there is a need for a greater spirit of community, more solidarity, and that this Parliament has no right to allow the budget — the instrument of this spirit of community and solidarity — to disintegrate.
Parlamentet og budgetudvalget har bestræbt sig på at holde døre åben til sidste øjeblik.
Parliament and its Committee on Budgets have tried to keep the door open until the last minute.
Hr. Fich, hoved ordføreren, har gjort sig store anstrengelser, og jeg vil gerne takke ham for hans indsats. Budgetsamrådet "fandt sted, men gav intet resultat.
Mr Fich, our rapporteur, has made the most strenuous efforts to this end, for which I take this opportunity to thank him.
Alligevel var vi indstillede på at vente, og vi ventede til sidste øjeblik, indtil i aftes, inden vi fremsatte det alvorlige forslag, som det er at forkaste budgettet.
It led to nothing. We were nevertheless pre pared to wait, and we did wait until the last moment, until yesterday evening, before recommending to the House the grave step of rejecting the budget.
Vi var rede til at afholde et allersidste samråd, der kunne have fundet sted i denne uge.
We were prepared to engage in a final effort at conciliation, which could have taken place this week.
Men Rådet afgjorde, at det var der ikke brug for.
The Council decided that this would not be appropriate.
Nu må vi så drage den eneste fornuftige konklusion heraf, og det er forkastelse af budgettet.
It is now necessary to draw the only rational conclusion, which is that the budget must be rejected.
Det er da også det, som budgetudvalget med stort flertal vedtog i aftes.
This is what your Committee decided last evening, by a very large majority.
Ganske vist har nogle af Rådets medlemmer været åbne for vore problemer, været villige til samråd, ganske vist har Rådet vist os noget, der ligner en gestus, ved at opføre de på budgettet manglende beløb i parenteser.
Admittedly, some members of the Council were receptive to our concern and well disposed to conciliation, and the Council made a gesture of sorts by writing into the budget, in square brackets, the amount needed to make up the shortfall.
Nr. 2-320/25 sion er dette spørgsmål blevet behandlet under en række betegnelser — timåneders budgettet, overholdelse af budgettets etårige karakter, respekt for den fælles landbrugspolitiks rette funktion osv.
No 2-320/25
O'Keeffe, formand for Rådet. — ((EN) Hr. formand, ved dette mit fjerde månedlige fremmøde for Europa-Parlamentet et det min opgave at forelægge for Dem de vigtigste elementer i Rådets afgørelser fra dets andenbehandling af budgetforslaget den 29. og 30. november.
Cot different groups made it abundantly clear that they did not wish to invite the Council to come to Strasbourg and no such invitation emerged from your committee.
Forud for Rådets møde var gået et møde med en parlamentarisk delegation, ledet af Deres for mand, hr. Pflimlin, og det efterfulgtes næsten umiddelbart af mit møde den 3. december med Europa-Parlamentets budgetudvalg.
Consequently, your Committee decided that it would be illogical for it to give its opinion on the amend ments which might have been proposed on the second reading, since that would have been inconsistent with the motion for a resolution that it is proposing, which calls for the outright rejection of the budget.
Hvis De skal forstå Rådets strategi fuldt ud, er det nok nyttigt, hvis jeg erindrer om de vigtigste faktorer, der er blevet diskuteret: det vil i et vist omfang sige på ny at oprulle det, jeg har sagt i tidligere indlæg.
Indeed, your committee took an indicative vote in favour of rejection as if the last words had already been said.
Gennem hele budgetproceduren for 1985 har Rådet haft det som sit ledende princip, at budgettet burde overholde den lovgivning, der er i kraft på et tids punkt, hvor budgettet vedtages, dvs. at udgifterne burde forblive inde for momsloftet på 1 %.
I have to say to you in all frankness that this greatly handicapped my personal attempts to sustain the dialogue between the Council and Parliament and that I greatly regret a tactic which has resulted in a totally spurious reason for voting for rejection.
Under Rådets møde fik jeg rigeligt bevis for, at det,der var blevet sagt fra parlamentarisk side, lå allerforrest i erindringen hos ministrene, da de gennemgik resultaterne af Deres afstemning under førstebehandlingen.
I turn immediately to this question, which has commanded the most discussion both within the Council and in exchanges with your Committee on Budgets and with your delegation in dialogue — the question of the supplementary and amending budget for 1985.
Jeg har i Parlamentets budgetudvalg haft lejlighed til at berette om rådsmødet og til at besvare den krydsild af spørgsmål, som udvalgets medlemmer rettede mod mig.
In interinstitutional discussion this question has been addressed under a number of descriptions — thelO months' budget, respect for the rule of annuality, res pect for the proper functioning of the common agricultural policy, and so on.
Jeg forstår, at budgetudvalget i går aftes besluttede at anbefale Dem at forkaste budgetforslaget.
Mr O'Keeffe, President-in-Office of the Council. — Mr President, on this my fourth monthly appearance before you in plenary sitting, it is my task to present to you the most important points in the Council's decisions taken at its second reading of the draft budget on 29 and 30 November.
Jeg forstår også, at en af grundene til at indtage en så ubøjelig holdning var, at når Rådet havde besluttet ikke at komme i Strasbourg om onsdagen for at holde sam råd med Parlamentet, var der intet nyt at diskutere og forkastelse var den eneste udvej.
The Council's session was preceded by a meeting with the parliamentary delegation led by your President, Mr Pflimlin, and followed almost immediately by my meeting on 3 December with your Committee on Budgets.
For at blive inden for 1 %-grænsen reducerede Rådet det beløb, der var krævet i det foreløbige budgetforslag.
No resources in excess of 1% VAT are currently available to the Community under any Treaty article or under any legislative decision of the Council or under any agreement among the Member States.
Ved gennemførelsen af denne nedskæring tog Rådet fuldt ud hensyn til bestemmelserne i artikel 203 og særlig til Parlamentets beføjelser på området for ikkeobligatoriske udgifter.
No simple budgetary entry referring to additional receipts actually creates these receipts, and any proposed expenditure dependent upon the existence of extra receipts would not be possible.
Som følge heraf var Rådet tilskyndet tik at skære ned på de landbrugsudgifter, Kommissionen havde foreslået i det foreløbige forslag til budget. Dette betød, at, hvis Kommissionens skøn over landbrugsudgifterne i 1985 er nøjagtige — og Kommissionen har bekræftet, at de opretholdes — så er bevillingerne på budgettet utilstrækkelige til hele året.
The general opinion among my colleagues in the Council, and indeed among parliamentarians whom I have had the opportunity to consult, was that the meeting between the Council and the parliamentary delegation was a genuine dialogue in which the parti cipants seriously addressed themselves to the main questions and were able to explain, on both sides and with reasons, how they thought progress could be made.
Det var i erkendelsen heraf, at Rådet ved sin førstebehandling påtog sig en formel forpligtelse, der indeholder et løfte om inden 1. oktober 1985 at dække de yderligere budgetbehov, der vil opstå i 1985.
During the Council session I had ample evidence that what had been said on the parliamentary side was in the forefront of Ministers' minds as they examined the results of your votes at the first reading.
Jeg må sige, at dette overrasker mig på grund af de ting, der blev sagt i budgetudvalget i sidste uge, hvor en række talere fra forskellige grupper som svar på et forslag om, at Rådet skulle inviteres til et samråd, gjorde det til overflod klart, at det ikke ønskede at invitere Rådet til at komme til Strasbourg, og en sådan invitation kom ikke fra udvalget.
I had the opportunity to report on the Council session to your Committee on Budgets and to answer the barrage of questions which its members posed to me.
Udvalget gennemførte faktisk en vejledende afstemning til fordel for forkastelse, som om det sidste ord allerede var blevet sagt.
I understand that yesterday evening your Committee on Budgets decided to recommend to you to reject the draft budget.
Jeg er nødt til at sige til Dem i al åbenhed, at dette lagde en stor dæmper på mine personlige bestræbelser for at fortsætte dialogen mel lem Rådet og Parlamentet, og at jeg dybt beklager en taktik, som har frembragt en falsk begrundelse for at stemme for forkastelse.
I also understand that in the discussion one of the reasons for adopting such a hard line was that since the Council had decided not to come to Strasbourg on Wednesday to hold a consultation with the Parliament, there was nothing new to discuss and rejection was the only possible course.
Hvordan det skulle gøres, lod man stå åbent, fordi en række andre beslutninger vedrørende 1985-løsningen stod for at skulle træffes i mellemtiden.
Consequently, the Council was impelled to reduce the agricultural expenditure proposed by the Commission in the preliminary draft budget.
Den 1. oktober valgtes som den seneste dato for at træffe beslutning — ikke den dato, hvor der skulle træffes beslutning, men den seneste — idet det forekom Rådet at være afgørende, at spørgsmålet om tillægsbudgettet 1985 blev løst før traktatens dato, den 5. oktober, for forelæggelse af 1986-budgetforslaget for Parlamentet. tet.
This meant that if the Commission's estimates of agricultural expenditure in 1985 are accurate — and the Commission has confirmed that it maintains them, then the provision in the budget is insufficient for the full year.
Jeg vender mig med det samme til dette spørgsmål, som er det, har gjort krav på mest diskus sion både internt i Rådet og i meningsudvekslingerne med budgetudvalget og i dialogen med Parlamentets delegation — spørgsmålet om tillægs- og ændringsbudgettet for 1985. I den interinstitutionnelle diskus
It was in recognition of this that the Council at its first reading entered into a formal obligation which includes an undertaking to meet by 1 October 1985 the additional budgetary requirements that will arise in 1985.
Der har sneget sig en misforståelse ind i spørgsmålet om den fælles landbrugspolitiks budgetbehov. Nogle medlemmer har sagt, at tallet 1315 mio ECU, som er forskellen mellem, hvad Kommissionen har bedt om,
I say that this surprises me because of the things said at the same Committee on Budgets last week, when, in response to a suggestion that the Council should be invited to a consultation, a number of speakers from
O'Keeffe jeg har forklaret, anerkender jeg og Rådet ikke kernen i kritikken, fordi finansiering og udgifter er sikret for alle 12 måneder i 1985, ligesom de også er garanteret af Rådets og medlemsstaternes aktioner for hele 1984 — det år, hvor de egne indtægter slap op.
The second concerns the corresponding receipts. However, in order to show that these receipts do not yet exist and therefore that expenditure cannot be incurred, the Council placed these amounts in square brackets, observed that they were not included in the budgetary totals and recalled in the form of commentary its declaration concerning the additional budgetary requirements for which additional funds will be provided — this without prejudice to the nature of these funds.
Det er en simpel kendsgerning, at vi i Fællesskabet ikke har denne mulighed.
How this was to be done was left open because, in the inter val, a number of other decisions relative to the 1985 solution were due to be taken.
Om vi efter en eller anden omfattende budgetreform skulle komme i besiddelse af den er irrelevant for den diskussion, vi fører i dag.
I have heard it argued that the step forward which the Council took in response to Parliament's demands is a divergence from budget practices observed throughout the Member States, because it still leaves the Community with a budget for less than 12 months.
og hvad Rådet har stillet til rådighed, er utilstrækkeligt, fordi det ikke tager højde for de økonomiske konsekvenser af prisfastsættelsen for 1985/86.
Some parliamentarians have said that the figure of 1 315 million ECU, which is the difference between what the Commission asked for and what the Council provided, is insufficient because it does not take account of the financial consequences of the 1985/86 price-fixing.
Faktum er, at Kommissionen og budgetmyndigheden under proceduren for udarbejdelse af et årligt budget anvendte konstanthypotesen som grundlag uden at tage hensyn til eventuelle ændringer i landbrugsforordningerne ved den årlige prisfastsættelse.
The fact is that in the procedure for the establishment of an annual budget the Commission and the budgetary authority based themselves on constant hypothesis without taking account of possible changes in agricultural regulations in the annual price-fixing.
Det er også blevet sagt, at den ekstra bevilling, de 1 315 mio ECU, måske under alle omstændigheder vil være utilstrækkelig.
It has also been said that the extra provision, 1315 million ECU, may in ancy case be insufficient.
Faktisk er det ikke så længe siden, at en række medlemmer påstod, at bevillingerne til land brugsudgifterne i 1984 sandsynligvis var overdrevne.
In fact, it is not so long ago since a number of parliamentarians were arguing that the 1984 agricultural expenditure provision was likely to be excessive.