natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Budgetudvalget har tværtimod endda sagt, at dette var et så vigtigt spørgsmål, et det måtte fremlægges for præsidiet — budgetudvalget har overhovedet intet herimod, ja vi kan endog forstå, hvis der skal stemmes om det i plenum.
Quite on the contrary, the Committee on Budgets evens said that it was such an important matter that it must be submitted to the Presidency; the Committee has absolutely no objection to this, indeed, we would even understand if it were to be voted on in plenary sitting.
Der var altså ikke noget her, der skulle skjules, og plenums ret skulle heller ikke på nogen måde indskrænkes. Vor formand har gjort dette helt klart i et brev til præsidiet.
There should be no coverup here, and the rights of the full assembly must in no way be restricted.
Price (ED). — (EN) Hr. formand, vi har her til for middag hørt indvendinger fra fru Veil og hr. de la' Malene vedrørende den procedure, budgetudvalget har fulgt, og det er blevet antydet, at budgetudvalget ikke har fulgt normal procedure.
Mr Price (ED). — Mr President, we have heard objections this morning from Mrs Veil and Mr de la Malène concerning the procedure of the Committee on Budgets, and suggestions that the Committee on Budgets has not followed normal practice.
Fru Veil har henvist til det mandat, der er nævnt i dokumenterne fra 1973 og 1978, og giver en meget snæver fortolkning af det, der er fastsat i 1973, det vil sige, at budgetudvalget ikke skal udarbejde en betænkning, medmindre der er tale om et principielt spørgsmål, eller der er tale om en sekundær overførsel.
Mrs Veil has referred to the delegated powers set out in the documents of 1973 and 1978 and takes a very restrictive view of what was laid down in 1973, namely that the Committee on Budgets would not report unless there was a point of principle or it was a secondary transfer.
Jeg vil endnu en gang bekræfte, hvad hr. von der Vring gjorde rede for, for at der ikke skal opstå ind tryk af, at dette slemme budgetudvalg igen havde til ranet sig nogle rettigheder, som ikke tilkom det.
I should like to reaffirm my support for the comments made by Mr von der Vring, to prevent anyone from getting the impression that this terrible Committee has yet again usurped rights to which it is not entitled.
De politiske vanskeligheder var os absolut bevidst.
We were perfectly aware of the political difficulties.
Ære de hr. de la Malene, vi er jo slet ikke imod.
And, my dear Mr de la Malène, we have no objections whatsoever.
Hvorfor besluttede præsidiet dengang, at vi på ny skal stemme om dette spørgsmål i plenum?
Why did the Presidency decide that Par liament should vote again on this matter?
Fordi vi i mellemtiden havde et nyvalgt Parlament.
Because the elections had been held in the meantime.
Hvis De og fru Veil nu anmoder om en afstemning på torsdag, vil ingen i dette udvalg sikkert have noget imod dette.
If you and Mrs Veil request a vote on Thursday no one in this Committee will oppose you.
Hvis det ikke var kommet, så ville vi være gået ud fra, at Deres kollega, hr. de la Malene, havde stemt med flertallet i budgetudvalget.
If you had not requested this we would have assumed that your colleague, Mr de la Malène, had voted with the majority in the Com mittee on budgets.
Politisk er der overhovedet ikke noget, som skal tilsløres her — jeg siger det kun, for at der ikke igen skal opstå et rygte.
There is no question of a political coverup here — and I am only saying so to prevent further rumours from spreading.
Jeg vil gerne anmode fru Veil om at betragte modsætningen mellem den ret snævre fortolkning, hun nu giver disse ord, og den fortolkning, der er blevet fulgt i Parlamentet de sidste fem år.
I would invite Mrs Veil to consider the contrast between the rather restrictive view that she now takes of those words and the view that has been observed in this Parliament for the whole of the last five years.
I denne periode har budgetudvalget ikke på noget tidspunkt fundet det nødvendigt at forelægge Parlamentet en betænkning.
During this period the Committee on Budgets has not at any time found it necessary to place a report before Parliament.
Faktisk behandlede budgetudvalget i to et halvt år af denne periode, det vil sige under fru Veils eget for mandskab, både store og små sager, som omfattede alle mulige vigtige spørgsmål.
Indeed, for two and a half of those years, i.e. during Mrs Veil's own presidency, the Committee on Budgets considered matters both great and small involving all sorts of important issues.
Det var dog tilsyneladende ikke nødvendigt at udarbejde en betænkning om nogen af dem.
Yet none of them apparently warranted a report.
Hvis vi sammenligner det med det spørgsmål, der nu foreligger Parlamentet, har Parlamentet selv gjort det ganske klart, at det ville frigøre midlerne og godkende overførslen, når der var fastsat et forslag til tillægsbudget.
If we compare that with the issue now before the House, the House itself made it quite clear that it would release the moneys and approve the transfer at such time as a draft supplementary budget was established.
Der er ikke noget principielt, der er forbigået Parlamentets opmærksomhed.
No point of principle has escaped the House.
Parlamentet har gjort sit synspunkt fuldstændigt klart, og budgetudvalget har kun i denne sag gennemført det, Parlamentet har givet udtryk for.
The House made its own view absolutely clear, and all that the Committee on Budgets has done in this instance was to implement the view expressed by the House.
Arndt (S). — (DE) Hr. formand, på den socialistiske gruppes vegne kan jeg tilslutte mig de kristelige de mokraters talsmand i budgetudvalget.
Mr Arndt (S). — (DE) Mr President, speaking for the Socialist Group I can express my support for the Christian-Democrat Group's budget spokesman.
I øvrigt svarer det til aftalen mellem gruppeformændene, hvor fru Veil og hr. de la Malene også var til stede.
His speach was a[so in line with the agreement between the Group chairmen, including Mrs Veil and Mr de la Malène.
Vi har udtrykkeligt erklæret, at der stemmes om det, hvis nogen ønsker det.
We specifically stated that a vote would be held if requested; this was agreed between the Group chairman and the President.
Det er således blevet drøftet mel lem gruppeformændene og formanden.
However, I would draw your attention to one point to prevent any rumours.
Jeg vil dig gøre opmærksom på en ting, så der ikke opstår nogen myter vil i den forbindelse henholde mig til budget udvalgets tidligere formand, hr. Lange, som har et godt ry i dette Parlament.
I should like to refer to what was said by the former chairman of the Committee on Budgets, Mr Lange, who has considerable standing in the House.
Budgetudvalget plejede tid ligere at træffe disse afgørelser.
In the past the Committee on Budgets made these decisions,
Og det er ud fra den holdning, vi indtager i forbindelse med dette spørgsmål, at man kan bedømme Parlamentets fremtid.
It is now or never. The position we adopt now on this question will give us some indication of what the future holds for this Parliament.
(Bifald fra forskellige pladser) har noget imod en afstemning her i parlamentsalen, kunne De have sparet os denne forhandling her i dag, og i betragtning af de nævnte politiske og kuridiske problemer, som De vidste besked med, kunne De have gået anderledes til værks og have forelagt en betænkning til afstemning her i Forsamlingen.
I have listened very attentively to Mr Arndt and Mr von der Vring, but, honourable members, since you have no objection to a plenary vote you could have spared us today's debate and, given the obvious political and legal problems involved, you could have handled the matter rather differently and submitted a report for a vote by the Assembly.
Vi kunne have undgået en nyttesløs forhandling, da De i grunden tilsyneladende er enige med os.
We could have spared ourselves a pointless debate since you seem to agree with us on the central issue.
Coste-Floret (RDE). - (FR) Jeg har lyttet til det, fru Veil, hr. de la Malene og min kollega hr. Chambeiron har sagt.
Mr Coste-Floret (RDE). — (FR) I have listened to what Mrs Veil, Mr de la Malène and my colleague Mr Chambeiron have said.
Jeg vil gerne gendrive to påstande, som forekommer mig hasarderede, og som er blevet fremsat under denne forhandling.
I should like to refute two statements made in this debate which, to my mind, go too far.
Man har sagt, at det ikke er budgetudvalget, men præsidiet, som bestemmer proceduren.
It has been said that it is not the Committee on Budgets but the Bureau which decides on precedure.
Det er rigtigt, men præsidiet skal træffe beslutninger herom inden for rammerne af sine beføjelser.
That may be true, but in making its decision, the Bureau must respect the rule of law.
Hr. formand, hvad angår budgetudvalget, vil jeg ger ne udtrykke min forbavselse vedrørende endnu et spørgsmål.
Mr President, there is another thing about the Com mittee on Budgets which astonishes me.
Hr. Arndt sagde: Budgetudvalget nyder agtelse i Parlamentet.
Mr Arndt said that the Committee on Budgets is held in some regard by Parliament.
Jeg ville ønske, hr. Arndt, at det forbliver således, og for at opnå dette burde vort arbejde her til formiddag have været forenklet, idet det første punkt på dagsordenen var den meddelelse, formanden har givet os.
I hope, Mr Arndt, that it may continue to be so and, to that end, I wish that it had made our work this morning simpler, knowing that the first item on the agenda was the communication by the President.
Hvis formanden for budget udvalget, eller i hans fravær en bemyndiget næstformand for budgetudvalget, klart havde kunnet forklare budgetudvalgets indstilling, ville dette have været bedre, end hvis medlemmer, der ikke var bemyndiget hertil, havde gjort det individuelt.
Instead of, allowing members not authorized to do so to give the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, it would have been better if the chairman of the Committee or, in his absence, a deputy-chairman who had been authorized by the Committee, had delivered an unequivocal opinion.
Jeg mener, at det vil være ønskeligt at bruge denne procedure i fremtiden.
I think it would be advisable to adopt this procedure in the future.
Det ville have lettet arbejdet for os.
It would have made our work much easier.
Man har liegeledes sagt, at vi har mulgihed for at stemme i plenum.
It has also been said that we have the possibility of taking a plenary vote.
Jeg vil mene, at vi ikke blot har mulighed for, men forpligtelse til at stemme i plenum, for det eneste juridiske spørgsmål — helt indlysende — der fremgår af denne forhandling, at konstatere, om budgetudvalget og også præsidiet har beføjelse til at give budgetudvalget ret til at omstøde en beslutning, der er truffet af Parlamentet.
I would say that we do not have a possibility but a duty to hold a plenary vote, since the only legal question — and it is a very obvious one — in this debate is whether the Committee on Budgets and the Bureau are authorized to entitle the Com mittee on Budgets to reverse a decision of Parliament.
Der er dog, som hr. Chambeiron og derefter fru Veil og min for mand, hr. de la Malene, har påpeget, en regel, som læres på alle skoler og juridiske fakulteter i Fællesskabet, og som er helt væsentlig, helt elementær: Det drejer sig om parallelitet i procedurerne. Det er Par lamentet, som suverænt har besluttet at blokere den overførsel, det drejer sig om i dag. Det er Parlamentet, alene Parlamentet og ikke et udvalg, som kan beslutte at frigøre det.
As Mr Chambeiron and later Mrs Veil and the chair man of my Group, Mr de la Malène, reminded us, there is a rule which is taught in every college and faculty of law in the Community and which is absolutely fundamental: the identity of form.
Fanton (RDE). — (FR) Hr. formand, i tilknytning til det, vor kollega Galland netop har sagt, mener jeg, at det ikke kan gå an, at man foregiver, at der her i Parlamentet findes to slags medlemmer: De privilegerede i budgetudvalget, som har eneret på at træffe beslutninger, og så de andre, som kommer her ude lukkende for at lytte til de beslutninger, budgetudvalget har truffet.
Mr Fanton (RDE). — (FR) Mr President, to carry on from what Mr Galland has just said, I think that we must not allow the impression to be given in Parliament that there are two categories of Members: those who enjoy the privileges of the Committee on Budgets and who are the only ones allowed to take decisions, and others who come along just to hear the Com mittee's decisions.
Vi er blevet valgt til et budgetmæssigt hverv, som er af afgørende betydning.
We have been elected to do our duty — and a vital duty it is — with regard to the budget.
Når der derfor viser sig et problem af en størrelsesorden som det, der her foreligger, er det ikke acceptabelt, hr. formand, — jeg siger det lige ud — at budgetudvalget tilsyneladende forbigår det ansvar, som påhviler os.
Therefore, when we are faced with a problem as great as the one before us at present, it is completely unacceptable for the Committee on Budgets to appear to be trying to dodge this responsibility of ours.
Jeg tilføjer, at et brud på den juridiske regel i denne affære vil udmunde i, at man kniber uden om de politiske ansvar, for der er tale om et grundlæggende politisk ansvar, om Parlamentets budgetmæssige an svar, ja, det er det eneste område, hvorpå Parlamentet ifølge traktaterne har besluttende myndighed.
I would add that because the rule of law has been infringed, political responsibilities have been shirked in this case, because the Parliament's responsibility with regard to the budget is a fundamental political responsibility and is the only field in which it has been given decision-making powers by the Treaties.
Denne besluttende myndighed bør ikke overlades til en underordnet myndighed.
It cannot relinquish this decision-making power to a subordinate authority.
Parallellitet i procedurer ne nødvendiggør, at det er Parlamentet, der træffer beslutningen.
If the identity of form is to be respeted, it is Parliament alone which can decide.
Jeg anmoder derfor af juridiske grunde og af politiske grunde — fordi jeg vil udøve mit ansvar som parlamentsmedlem, og fordi jeg er overbevist om, at alle her ønsker et gøre det — afstemning ved navneopråb. råb.
Another thing: people are always complaining, as we have heard here on several occasions, about the image which Parliament has in Europe. I am sorry to have to say, Mr President, that we will scarcely be improving
Det ville være uheldigt, hvis Parlamentet på grund af en langvarig
Debates of the European Parliament
Europa-Parlamentets forhandlinger
(Applause from various quarters) wants a vote.
Cot (S), formand for budgetudvalget. — (FR) Hr. for mand, jeg må bede mine kolleger undskylde denne kedelige forsinkelse, og jeg vil gerne under alle om stændigheder fjerne enhver misstemning mellem Par lamentets budgetudvalg og plenarforsamlingen og sige, at vi i virkeligheden ikke har gjort andet end på bedst mulig måde at udføre den opgave, som er blevet os betroet. Det må jo være vor formand, hr. Pflimlin, som nu skal træffe de deraf følgende beslut ninger.
Mr Cot (S), Chairman of the Committee on Budgets. — (FR) Mr President, I would ask the House to excuse this most unfortunate delay and, for my part at least, I should like to dispel any misunderstanding between your Committee on Budgets and Parliament as a whole by saying that in this matter we have done no more than carry out to the best of our abilities the task entrusted to us.
Når dette er sagt, mener jeg, hvad angår sagens indhold, og i betragtning af den forhandling, som netop er blevet påbegyndt, at det er vigtigt — og, her er jeg enig med hr. Langes — at Parlamentet far tid til at tænke sig om, før det går til afstemning om dette vigtige emne.
Having said this, I think that, as regards the substance of the question and in view of the debate that has just opened, it is important — and here I agree with Mr Langes — that the House should be allowed time to think before voting the way it wishes on this important subject.
Formanden. — Jeg har fra Hr. Langes modtaget et forslag om afstemning i morgen kl. 15.00.
President. — I have received from Mr Langes a proposal that the vote be taken at 3 p.m. tomorrow.
Er der modforslag?
Are there any counterproposals?
forhandling om de proceduremæssige forhold i for bindelse med, hvordan vi refunderer disse penge til Det forenede Kongerige, og hvordan vi godkender overførslen, over for den offentlige mening i Fælles skabet kommer til at give indtryk af, at man tøver med at følge den beslutning op, der blev truffet i juli, helt uafhængigt af, hvor uklog nogle af os mente, den beslutning var.
It would be unfortunate if this House, by debating at some length the precedural issues of how we refund this money to the United Kingdom, how we approve the transfer, were to give public opinion in the Com munity somehow the impression that there is a reluctance to keep to the decision that they made in July, however ill-advised some of us felt that decision was.
Ved fortsat at drøfte disse procedure mæssige spørgsmål giver vi den offentlige mening det indtryk, at Parlamentet, efter at vi har fastsat en betingelse — en betingelse, som jeg ganske vist mener er uheldig — og efter at denne betingelse er blevet opfyldt, og der er blevet forelagt et tillægsbudget, ønsker at uddybe og fortsætte drøftelsen.
By arguing round these procedural questions, we are giving public opinion the impression that having laid down a condition — albeit a condition which I believe ill-advised — and now that condition has been satisfied and a supplementary budget has been transmitted, there is a desire in this House to enlarge the argument to continue it.
Det ville være mere sobert og rigtigt, hvis vi kunne stemme om spørgsmålet hurtigt og derefter gå i gang med at behandle de mange vigtige spørgsmål om budgetanliggender, som Parlamentet skal træffe beslutning om, hvis vi ikke ønsker, at Parlamentet gradvis skal falde i agtelse hos de besluttende instanser i Fællesskabet og hos offentligheden.
It would be neater and cleaner if we could get to a vote on the issue speedily and then get on to dealing with the many substantive issues on budgetary affairs that this House has to take a decision on if we are not going to see a gradual diminution of the esteem of this House in the eyes of the decision-making places of the Community, and the public at large.
Formanden. — På dette tidspunkt vil jeg gerne sige et par ord om den procedure, Parlamentet nu bør følge.
President. — At this stage in our proceedings I should like to say a few words on the procedure which the House should now follow.
Galland (L). — (FR) Hr. formand, jeg mener for lidt siden at have forstået, at vore kolleger hr. Langes og hr. Arndt forklarede, at der ikke forelå politiske pro blemer, at beslutningen var truffet, at det simpelt hen drejede sig om et formelt problem.
Mr Galland (L). — (FR) Mr President, if I under stood correctly a moment ago, Mr Langes and Mr Arndt were explaining that there was no political problem, that the decision was taken, and that there was merely a problem of form.
Jeg kan derfor ikke forstå, hvorfor man på et punkt af drøftelsen ræsonnerer på én måde og dernæst ræsonnerer, at det er nødvendigt med en dybtgående drøftelse i de politiske grupper.
So I fail to understand why one line is being taken at one point in a discussion and then another line according to which there ought to be a thorough discussion in the political groups.
Hvis der overhovedet er tale om nogen rød tråd, hr. formand, kan jeg fuldstændigt tilslutte mig Deres forslag om »the sonner is the better«.
If we are to be consistent, Mr President, I would whole heartedly agree with your phrase 'the sooner the better'.
Lad os stemme i eftermiddag, så er dette problem hurtigt løst.
Let us vote this afternoon so as to settle this question without delay.
Budgetudvalget har meddelt Parlamentets formand, hvilken beslutning det har truffet, og formanden har informeret Forsamlingen herom i henhold til de gældende bestemmelser.
The Committee on Budgets has informed the President of Parliament of its decision on the transfer, and the President has, in accordance with the rules in force, informed the House accordingly.
Det forekommer mig fuldstændig klart, at uafhængigt af, hvilken mening den ene eller den anden har om den procedure, budgetudvalget har valgt, så ønsker Forsamlingen, at Parlamentet selv udtaler sig om overførslen.
It seems to me perfectly clear that, whatever individual Members may think of the procedure chosen by the Committee on Budgets, the House as a whole wants the decision on this transfer to be taken by Parliament itself.
Jeg foreslår derfor, at Parlamentet nu selv udtaler sig, og at De også nu træffer beslutning om, hvornår Parlamentet skal stemme om denne overførsel.
I there fore propose that you decide now that it is Parliament itself which should decide, and that you also decide when Parliament is to vote on this transfer.
Formanden. — Der foreligger altså to forslag: enten stemmer vi i eftermiddag kl. 15.00 eller i morgen eftermiddag kl. 15.00.
President. — We therefore have two proposals : either we vote at 3 p.m. today or we vote at 3 p.m. tomorrow.
Jeg vil gå frem i kronologisk rækkefølge.
I shall take the two proposals in chronological order.
Jeg vil bede Dem først stemme om hr. Gallands forslag om at foretage afstemningen i dag.
I would ask you to vote first of all on Mr Galland's pro posal to vote today.
(Parlamentet besluttede, at afstemningen skulle finde sted samme eftermiddag kl. 15.00)
(Parliament decided that the vote would be held at 3 p.m. that day)
Der er to muligheder : enten går vi meget, meget hurtigt frem og stemmer i eftermiddag kl. 15.00, eller vi stemmer i morgen. Det må De bestemme.
There are two possibilities: either we lose no time at all and vote at 3 o'clock this afternoon or we vote tomorrow.
Jeg vil sige ligeud, at jeg efter at have hørt de forskellige talere mener, at det må gøres hurtigst muligt.
To be perfectly frank, after hearing the various speakers, I think the sooner the better.
Men det er blot min personlige mening.
But that is only a personal opinion.
De må nu meddele mig Deres beslutning om tidspunktet for afstemningen, og jeg nævner endnu en gang, at der er to muligheder: enten i dag kl. 15.00 eller i morgen kl. 15.00.
I now need a decision on the time of the vote, and once again there are two possibilities: either at 3 p.m. today or at 3 p.m. tomorrow.
Jeg vil bede Dem meddele mig, hvad De foretrækker.
I would ask you to tell me which you prefer.
Huckfield (S). — (EN) Hr. formand, jeg tager ordet til forretningsordenen for at søge vejledning hos Dem.
Mr Langes (PPE) — (DE) Mr President, I have just stated clearly that I go along with it if the House
Langes (PPE). — (DE) Hr. formand, jeg har netop sagt det helt klart, at jeg går ind for det, hvis Parlamentet ønsker en afstemning.
Mr Huckfield (S). — Mr President, I rise on a point of order to seek your guidance.
Jeg vil følgelig bede min gruppe om også at gå ind for det. Men jeg foreslår, at vi gennemfører denne afstemning i morgen, torsdag, kl. 15.00 med de andre vigtige afstemninger, for måske vil nogle af grupperne drøfte det endnu en gang, og så har vi brug for tid til i morgen, Det vil sikkert også være tidligt nok, selv for hr. de la Male ne, selv om han har meget travlt.
I am not trying to minimize at all the significance of the issue that we have just been discussing, because, obviously, the issue of the rebate is very important indeed to us in Britain; but I would like to ask you how it is possible on an important day like today to raise an issue which many of us believe is just as important as the one we have
Dette er en konflikt, hr. formand, som indtil nu har kostet Det forenede Kongeriges regering mere end 4 000 mio. £.
(During this speech a large banner bearing the inscription 'National Union of Mineworkers' had been brought in and displayed at the back of the Chamber.
Jeg håber, Parlamentet har bemærket, hvorledes det venstreorienterede diktatur netop viste sit ansigt.
This is a dispute, Mr President, which has so far cost the United Kingdom Government more than UKL 4 000 million.
(Afbrudelser fra højre)
(Interruptions from the right)
(Yderligere afbrydelser)
(Further interruptions)