natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det er, at der i modsætning til traktaten ikke kun er tale om Kommissionens forslag, som den har eneret på, men som er en af de utallige ting, der er blevet tilsidesat i de senere år.
It is that, contrary to the Treaty, there is no longer the Commission's pro posal alone, that exclusive right that is one of the many things to have been taken from it in recent years.
Og der er en logik — det vil jeg gerne sige til hr. Nordmann, som er yderst kartesiansk i sin indstilling — der går ud på, at hvis man vil forsvare traktatens kartesianske ånd, så skal man forsvare traktaten og ikke tilsidesætte den, når det passer én og ellers kræve den overholdt.
There is something logical here — and I should like to speak here to Mr Nordmann, who is highly Cartesian — and it is that, if one wishes to defend the Cartesian spirit of the Treaty, then one has to defend the Treaty and not infringe it when it suits one and expect it to be adhered to otherwise.
Ved at gennemtvinge enstemmighed og ved at berøve Kommissionen dens eneret til at fremsætte forslag overtrådtes traktaten to gange, og derfor var man dømt til fiasko.
This is why, by imposing unity and refusing to allow the Commission the exclusive right of proposal on two occasions, the Treaty was infringed and failure was unavoidable.
Det er en ting, jeg ønsker at under strege i dag.
That is one thing I want to emphasize again today.
Så er der traktaten.
For this he deserves our thanks.
Den vil jeg anbefale Dem at læse.
We well under stand that he cannot answer all our interventions in five minutes.
Jeg vil bede nogle om at få fat i en traktat for at se, i hvor høj grad man i hvert fald igennem ti år har fjernet sig fra den.
I therefore propose — and here I am thinking of the staff and the interpreters — that we resume the sitting at 3.15 p. m. instead of 3 p. m.
Det var noget helt andet, da man først til Den høje Myndighed og senere til Kommissionen sagde: fremsæt forslag.
The Commission President will thus be given ample time to answer all your points.
For at ændre et forslag fra Kommissionen krævedes der enstemmighed. Det ville ændre det hele.
And do you not, in these difficult times, still try and maintain cohesion ?
Jeg har været ude for tilfælde, hvor de fleste medlemsstater var imod Kommissionens forslag, men i sidste ende måtte give efter.
There's no point in snivelling about it or droning on about the Council.
I dag er det sådan, at når et forslag ikke behager en af de ti regeringer, så forlanger man, at Kommissionen fremsætter nogle andre forslag.
You have to try and preserve your cohesion. And indeed, how many times have we not changed our proposals for the sake of a compromise in steel and fisheries ?
Det kræver, jeg ved ikke hvilket talent.
And sometimes we have succeeded.
Jeg indrømmer, at man skal være genial, have en begavelse, som jeg i hvert fald ikke er i besiddelse af.
Mr Thorn, President of the Commission. — (FR) Mr President, do not be afraid, I shall not be using all my time.
Hvis han er i besiddelse af den, så bedes han meddele mig det.
I shall try and be as brief as possible.
Men jeg vil advare mod én ting: man vil have en ændret Kommission, det får De snart lejlighed til, det får alle lejlighed til.
In telegraphic style, that being what we need at the moment, I should nevertheless like to thank all those who took the trouble to speak.
Men har De ikke, mine damer og herrer, bemærket den voksende nationalisme?
We have to put up a fight. You will do so, but so shall we.
Den ny Kommission kan meget vel gå hen og blive lidt mere national og lidt mindre europæisk end den nuværende.
So I cannot be asked to be firm when it suits you and conciliatory when firmness does not suit you.
Så kan De fortælle mig, om det er bedre, for som tingene er i øjeblikket, siger De alle, at vi står over for tiltagende nationalisme.
My impression is that there is a political group that thinks that working with Parliament is agreeing with that group's proposals — which are, in fact, fairly nationally oriented.
Vi beklager os over, at man økonomisk og industrielt beset ikke investerer tilstrækkeligt, og at investeringerne er faldende.
We heard about the role of the Commission — and that was a question by two honourable members who did not have time to listen to the answer.
Den alvorligste investeringsnedgang i øjeblikket er den faldende investering i Europa, der investeres ikke mere i Europa.
I was amazed by the lack of understanding and knowledge, in this House included, about what is really happening at the moment.
Nu har vi i fire år gentaget, hvad man burde sige til sin regering, og det var forholdsvis enkelt, idet vi faktisk måske ikke har haft nok initiativer.
Whenever the Commission fails to do what that group wants, it is not for Parliament.
Men der har været mange — også i sagen om det britiske bidrag. Jeg kender til regeringer, der i flere år kun har haft én ting i hovedet.
Nevertheless, you have heard slightly contradictory opinions today, slightly contradictory.
Og det er måske lige lidt nok.
Debates of the European Parliament
Hvad skal man da gøre?
You have to look at things clearly.
Skal man ikke gribe ind?
You are politicians.
Skal danskere og englændere hver især have lov til at fremsætte deres forslag?
Now for one or two words on certain other essential criticisms. Mr Glinne spoke about the risk of bank ruptcy.
Det er ikke min sag.
That is excessive.
Men skal man trods alt ikke i disse vanskelige tider prøve på at opretholde kohæsionen?
There is a risk of agricultural expenditure being more than the appropriations in the budget.
Og så retter man bebrejdelser mod mig!
That risk will be a certainty if the Council fails to follow our proposals.
Nogle siger: vi må trods alt have et kompromis, blot ikke jamre, ikke blive ved med at rette de samme anklager mod Rådet, men søge at bevare kohæsionen.
To Mrs Le Roux and to so many others I should like to say that we had no other choice.
Hvor mange gange har vi ikke netop måttet ændre vore forslag for at opnå et kompromis?
We are in a situation where, unlike the national governments, we cannot have a budget deficit.
Undertiden er det lykkedes for os.
We cannot go further than the 1 % ceiling.
Skal vi derfor, som hr. Macario siger, køre frem med de store principper: vi har fremsat et forslag, vi går.
Can we therefore be blamed for making proposals that are within the limits of the budget and represent what it is our duty to do ?
Man går kun én gang.
I understand this.
Jeg ved godt, at det ville glæde nogle.
It does not surprise me.
Men det er for mig ingen grund til at gøre det.
But let us see what the responsibilities of the Commission and Parliament will be if the Council fails.
Og går Parlamentet for øvrigt sin vej, hver gang Rådet ikke følger det?
Then there is the Treaty.
Det tror jeg ikke.
I recommend reading it.
Det er næppe den politik, der skal føres i øjeblikket.
And whenever the Commission requests it, there is a vote.
Der skal arbejdes hårdt.
And on most points, a majority is enough.
Det kommer De til, og det gør vi også.
That altered everything.
Altså kan man ikke på den ene side kræve fasthed af mig, og på den anden forsonlighed, alt efter hvad der passer i parternes kram.
And I have known cases where the majority of States were against the Commission pro posal and were forced to give in in the end.
Han er ikke
And I am not.
Europa-Parlamentets forhandlinger
If he is, will he please say so.
Jeg er ikke så sikker på, at det modsatte er synderligt rigtigt.
As to the budget imbalance, I am in complete agree ment with the analysis, particularly by Mr Herman.
enig med mig, det ved jeg.
No one invests in Europe any more.
Men han var da i hvert fald høflig.
But we have had many of them, including in the affair of the British budget compensation.
Noget har jeg dog bifaldet: noget som Fred Catherwoord ville have bifaldet.
I know governments that have only had one idea in their heads for several years.
Det sker ikke hver dag, og det bør i højere grad forurolige den bifaldende part end mig.
And that, perhaps, is a little on the slender side, really.
De siden da fremsatte forslag er altså enstemmigt vedtaget af samtlige regeringer.
The Commission of the time — all hail to my predecessors — had already been constantly refusing to be associated with this, as the proposals on future financing prove.
Det vil jeg gerne sige til bl.a. en række danske og nederlanske talere.
I think that those who defend their national interests properly think about Europe, for Europe can bring the nations a lot.
Alle forslag om finansieringen er truffet enstemmigt, og læs traktaten: når Rådet træffer enstemmige afgørelser, er vi bundet af dem.
So let us all shoulder our responsibilities.
Man beslutter med enstemmighed.
He does not agree with me, I know, but at least he was courteous.
Og når der er truffet en enstemmig afgørelse, bebrejdes Kommissionen at gøre det, der er besluttet.
I should like to tell certain speakers, from the Netherlands and Denmark and elsewhere, as much.
Det er lidt for nemt.
All the proposals
Og så et par ord om en anden væsentlig kritik.
I shall still have contributed to something.
Hr. Glinne talte om faren for fallit; det er for voldsomt.
I shall have got him applauded by Sir Fred.
Der er fare for overskridelse af landbrugsudgifterne i forhold til de på budgettet opførte bevillinger.
That does not happen every day and it should be a bigger worry to the person applauding than to me.
Til fru Le Roux og mange andre vil jeg sige, at vi ikke havde andet valg.
Thorn on financing were taken unanimously and, reread the Treaty, when the Council decides something unanimously, we have to abide by it.
Vi står i en situation, hvor vi i modsætning til de nationale regeringer ikke kan have underskud på budgettet.
So it is impossible to go on saying that the Treaty is being infringed and we are not keeping to the rule about majority voting.
Vi kan ikke overskride grænsen på 1 %.
Decisions are taken unanimously.
Kan man så komme og bebrejde os, at vi fremsætter forslag, der holder sig inden for budgettets grænser og er i overensstemmelse med, hvad det er vor pligt at gøre?
When we decide unanimously, people complain that the Commission does what has been decided. That's a little- too easy.
Det forstår jeg, og det overrasker mig ikke.
That is a subject for discussion between us.
Men lad os se lidt på Kommissionens og Parlamentets ansvar i tilfælde af forsømmelse fra Rådets side.
We had got over it in the following year's proposals and at Athens, I heard two heads of delegations say that it was still too early to solve the financial crisis, that we had to go on to the bitter end and that, you see, is the danger of the way Europe operates.
Til hr. Herman vil jeg endvidere sige, når han kommer ind på, at visse betingelser skal være opfyldt — et meget vigtigt emne — at de findes og er meget udpræget for NIC og Investeringsbanken, men at de også findes på individuelt projektplan, samt at det europæiske monetære system har levet op til forventningerne og muliggjort større konvergens i den økonomiske politik.
To Mr Herman I should like to say that, when he speaks about conditionality — a very important subject — that it does exist and it is strong in the case of the NCI and the EIB, but that it comes in at the level of individual projects, that the conditionality of the European monetary system has asserted itself and made for greater convergence of economic policies.
Det er på Strukturfondsplan, hr. Herman, at betingelserne mangler på grund af de forpligtelser, som regeringerne har gennemtvunget og fået med i forordningerne, og det er netop derfor, at Kommissionen i juli 1983 foreslog, at vi skulle have beføjelse til at kræve, at visse betingelser skal være til stede i forbindelse med en forøgelse af strukturfondenes fællesskabseffektivitet.
It is at the level of the structural funds, Mr Herman, that conditionality is lacking because of the constraints imposed by the governments and written into the regulations and that is precisely why our Commission proposed, in July 1983, to give us the power to exercise this conditionality so as to increase the Community effectiveness of the structural funds.
Hr. Glinne har fundet uoverensstemmelse i tallene på landbrugsbudgettet og siger: den ene gang siger de 1 600 og den næste 900.
On the subject of the agricultural budget, Mr Glinne noted disagreement as to the figures. On one occasion you said 1 600 and on another 900, he said.
Jeg skal forklare ham for skellen: Det første tal bygger på den antagelse, at smørbeholdningerne får lov til at vokse, hvilket det første år, når man lader beholdningerne vokse, er billigere end at sælge dem — i stedet for at afvikle overskuddene.
I should like to explain the difference to him. The first figure was based on the assumption that butter stocks would go on accumulating — something which, during the first year when you let the stocks pile up, is cheaper than selling them — rather than marketing the surplus.
Kommissionen har ikke beføjelse til ensidigt at nedskære landbrugs udgifterne — da de er obligatoriske — så længe Rådet ikke ændrer forordningerne.
That is the only difference. I should like to say this in telegraphese, but I shall perhaps have the opportunity of explaining it to him properly.
Hvis landbrugs udgifterne derfor overskrider bevillingerne, loftet på 1 %, i mangel af yderligere midler, som medlemsstaterne skal vedtage med enstemmighed, så kan Kommissionen ikke unddrage sig pligten til at frem sætte et ændringsbudget. Og så kan De forestille Dem reaktionen hos budgetmyndighedens to grene.
One last example. When people complain about the proposals the Commission has to make — and it was Mr Barbi, I think, who said this — objecting to us defending the Commission's original proposal of going beyond the 1 % ceiling without limiting it to 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8, it is true.
Hvad den budgetmæssige uligevægt angår, er jeg helt enig i navnlig hr. Hermans analyse af den. Der tales om en række forsinkelser.
What I fear is that the 1.4% — and this is my final argument — will be soon exhausted.
Men vi må ikke glemme, at Rådet allerede i 1980 slog ind på nettosaldoens vej — endnu før den nuværende Kommission — på foran ledning af præsident Giscard d'Estaing og forbundskansler Helmut Schmidt.
There are butter stocks and heaps of other things, so, exponentially speaking, the curve will go on rising before it falls and I suggest that in any situation we will reach almost 1.2%.
Træffes der ikke beslutning om tilpasninger, især med hensyn til de fælles markedsordninger og de monetære udligningsbeløb, kan vi bestemt regne med en kraftig overskridelse af landbrugsbudgettet, hvis man ikke følger forslagene i dokument KOM(500). Det sagde jeg allerede i formiddags.
If no decision is taken on changes, in particular to the common organizations of market and the MCAs, we are sure, if the proposals of document COM(500) are not adhered to — as I said this morning — that we shall go far beyond the agricultural budget.
Så var der én — og igen tror jeg, at det var hr. Glinne — der sagde, at man havde planer om mange interessante foranstaltninger, men ikke sagde noget om finansieringen.
Someone — and I believe it was Mr Glinne again — told me that a lot of interesting measures were planned but that nothing had been said about their financing.
Det var mit indtryk, at jeg i mit indlæg, hvad nogle bebrejdede mig, kun talte om finansiering.
I personally had the impression that in my speech I had only spoken about financing, something some people had complained about.
Men lad det være!
Anyway, be that as it may !
Hvad angår en række forslags sene fremkomst, har vi ikke ventet for længe; men De ved lige så godt som os, at forøgelsen af de egne indtægter aldrig opnår enstemmighed, så længe udgifterne i forbindelse med den fælles landbrugspolitik ikke er kommet under
What dooms an effort of this kind is that, without any new policy, you in Parliament and my successors will be forced to ask for a further over-run, by ratification of the national parliaments, even before enlargement has had its effect, i.e. in three years' time, and I believe that this permanent crisis, as we know it today, with the inherent risk of a request for ratification in 12 states at that stage, should be avoided.
Jeg er af den opfattelse, at de, der forsvarer deres nationale interesser godt, har Europa i tankerne, idet Europa kan tilbyde natio nerne meget.
No, we are asking people who are tired of paying and want their money back — not just one person, there are
Hvornår er valgmulighederne formuleret?
Mr Enright (S). — First, Mr President, I am complaining because I did not get one in my pigeon hole.
Så kom 30. majmandatet.
(Laughter)
Vi må stille konkrete forslag, og derfor har vi trukket landbrugsforslagene tilbage i 1981 og 1982. Med hensyn til priserne blev vi dog ikke fulgt af Parlamentet, dér praler af det nu.
Secondly, is it not even more scandalous that scurrilous attacks are thrown around the Press Room by individuals from this Parliament who are open to abuse in very many ways ?
Her er der stof til diskussion Dem imellem.
It is quite scandalous.
Den er den fare, vi er udsat for.
It should be investigated.
Vi vil redde medlemsstaterne ved at redde Fællesskabet.
We want to save the Member States by saving the Community.
Vi vil give det midlerne i hænde til ny politik. Vi er på trods af en række nationale regeringer i færd med at prøve på at redde stålindustrien.
We want to give it the means of new policies.
Vi tager fat på den nye teknologi, vi vil styrke det interne marked, vi vil redde landbruget og kontrollere vore udgifter.
We are getting to grips with the new technologies, we want to strengthen the internal market, we want to save agriculture and control our spending.
Vi har lavet fiskeripolitikken, og vi er ved at forhandle om Lomé III, og alligevel er der nogle, der er kommet til i den sidste time — og jeg tager mig altid i agt for nidkære forkæmpere — der siger, at det ikke er tilstrækkeligt.
We have created a fisheries policy, we are negotiating Lomé III, but some people, those who came at the eleventh hour (I am always wary about the zealous) tell us it is not enough.
Det er allerede meget, at disse vil hjælpe os til succes.
It is already a very good thing that they are helping us succeed.
Nogle advarsler kommer lidt sent.
Some lessons are learned a little late in the day. (Applause)
Afstemningen om de tre beslutningsforslag finder sted i morgen kl. 18.00 (').
The vote on the three motions for resolutions will take place at 6 p.m. tomorrow. '
(Mødet udsat kl. 13.10 og genoptaget kl. 15.15)
(The sitting ivas suspended at 1.10 p.m. and resumed at 3.15 p.m.)
FORSÆDE: EGON KLEPSCH -Næstformand
IN THE CHAIR : MR KLEPSCH
Situationen er meget alvorlig, fordi dette dokument angriber fru Simone Veil personligt.
The situation is a particularly serious one in that the document concerned contains a personal attack on Mrs Simone Veil.
Derfor anmoder jeg Dem venligst om, hr. formand, på enhver måde at forhindre, at smædeskrivelser mod vor tidligere formand og i øvrigt mod alle medlemmer lægges direkte i medlemmernes officielle post.
Which is why I am asking you, Mr President, to take all possible steps to prevent leaflets abusing our former President — or indeed any of our Members — being put in with our official mail. (Applause)
Når man i forbindelse med de forslag, som Kommissionen skal fremsætte — det var vist hr. Barbi, der sagde det — bebrejder os, at forsvare Kommissionens oprindelige forslag om over skridelse af loftet på 1 % uden en begrænsning på 1,4-1,6 eller 1,8 %, så er det rigtigt.
Yesterday, Question No 26, tabled by Mr Rumor, was listed in the order paper as a former oral question with debate which comes under Rule 42, converted into a question for Question Time, which is governed by Rule 44.
Lad os sammen tænke over sagen et øjeblik.
Mr Rumor was not present in the Chamber and the Presidency in the person of Lady Elles ruled that the question had fallen.
Trods "al slags modstand skal vi forsvare dette, sige at vi ikke giver efter, og at vi opretholder de foreliggende forslag, og samtidig ved vi, at der ikke er tre regeringer, der er enige med os.
This morning, at the begin ning of today's debate on the order paper was the same question, tabled by Mr Rumor on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee and included in today's debate.
Hvad er risikoen?
President. — Mr Israel, the staff are not to blame.
Det er, at de enes om 1,4 %.
However, I shall have the matter looked into.
Er det så ikke bedre, at jeg træder ind i billedet og prøver på et opnå et mellemliggende tal?
Mr Geurtsen (L). — (NL) Mr President, I accept your statement that the staff are not responsible for what is distributed.
Politik er ikke altid let: Enten kun holde sig til principperne og måske ikke deltage i beslutningen.
If none of the staff is responsible for what is distributed, I feel the police should be called in to find out how these disgraceful pamphlets find their way into our pigeon-holes.
For det, jeg er bange for, er, at 1,4 % — og det er mit sidste ræsonnement — hurtigt opbruges.
The identity of the person who has been attacked is not so important.
Alene landbrugspolitikken har, som man kan se det nu, overskredet grænsen på 1 %, og selv om det i morgen skulle lykkes Dem at få land brugsudgifterne under kontrol, så vil det tage et stykke tid, før de begynder at falde.
What is important is that people can obviously come in here to press their pamphlets on us, and anonymously at that.
Det sker ikke fra den ene dag til den anden; der er smørlagrene og en masse andet.
I do not think it is enough for you to say : 'The staff are not responsible'.
Kurven vil altså fortsætte med at stige kraftigt, inden den falder, og jeg vil tro, at vi under alle omstændigheder allerede når op på næsten 1,2%.
I expect the Bureau to carry out a thorough and extensive investigation to establish the source of these disgraceful pamphlets. lets.
Jeg vil imidlertid foranledige en undersøgelse af tilfældet.
There is an Interparliamentary Delegation responsible for relations with the Gulf States.
Vi anslår udgifterne til udvidelsen til mellem 0,2 og 0,25 %. Ved at lægge disse to elementer sammen, kommer vi allerede op på over 1,4 %, hvilket bringer os i en nærmest absurd situation.
Under Rule 93 substitutes are appointed to that Delegation.
Geurtsen (L). — (NL) Hr. formand, jeg accepterer Deres meddelelse om, at personalet ikke er ansvarligt for omdelingen.
I was a substitute for a certain Mr Motchane, who I believe exists, though we have had no proof of that for a consider able period of time.
Jeg beundrer den hurtighed, hvormed De fastslår dette, da De først nu har fået meddelelse herom.
In being his substitute, I was following up my long standing interest in the Gulf States, going back to time many years ago and naturally expected to take a full part in this delegation.
Hvis ingen af personalet er ansvar ligt for omdelingen, så tror jeg, det er nødvendigt at inddrage politiet for at finde ud af, hvorledes det da er muligt, at disse smædeskrivelser omdeles via vore pigeon-holes.
However, when the alleged Mr Motchane was not able to take part in the delegation, I was informed that his place had been offered to the French.
Det drejer sig ikke i så høj grad om den person, der her angribes, det drejer sig om, at det tilsyneladende er muligt at komme ind i huset for at påtvinge os skrivelser — endog anonymt. Jeg mener ikke, at jeg kan nøjes med Deres meddelelse om, at
I would like, therefore, a ruling from the Bureau as to whether or not substitutes on delegations must be of the same nationality as the members of the delegation, because otherwise, quite clearly, we are in breach of the Rules, or at least we are committing a stupidity.
Det er det store slag, der varsles: kontrollen med vore udgifter.
President. — You evidently missed my second sentence.
Man siger til mig, at vi nu skal mobilisere Europa.
I said I would have the matter looked into. I cannot say more than that just now.
Jeg vil gerne mobilisere Europa, men at
Topical and urgent debate (objections) : See Minutes.