natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den Økonomiske og Monetære Union er stærk, med sikre data og fastlagte instrumenter, men samhørigheden er svag trods sit grundlag, fordi den især sikrer sig ved en global og industriel politik, og socialpolitikkens og miljøpolitikkens gennemslagskraft er ubestemt, skønt de tilsammen burde opveje markedet og garantere en kvalitativ udvikling samt social retfærdighed og overbevist tilslutning fra de europæiske borgeres side.
Economic and monetary union is strong, with a specific timetable and well-defined instruments, but cohesion — in spite of the platform which has been created — remains weak, because it is provided for essentially through a general industrial policy, and the workings of the social and environmental policies have not been defined, two policies which between them should counterbalance the market and ensure qualitative growth, social justice and the enthusiastic support of the citizens of Europe.
Den Økonomiske Union unddrager sig den parlamentariske politiske kontrol og opvejes ikke af en stærk politisk union.
Economic Union is not subject to political, par liamentary control and is not balanced by closer political union.
Hr. Delors har sagt, at den bliver en realitet efter 1996, og at fraværet af den for tiden skaber mange problemer.
Although President Delors has stated
Lannoye (V). — (FR) Hr. formand, hr. rådsformand, hr. kommissionsformand, kære kolleger, jeg vil gerne atter bringe Maastricht-topmødets problematik ind i dens rette sammenhæng.
LANNOYE (V). — (FR) Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to put the problems tackled at the Maastricht Summit back in their context.
I de fleste europæiske lande og i særdeleshed i mit eget, Bel gien, har offentligheden i vid udstrækning mistet interessen for politik, og det giver det yderste højre gode vækstbetingelser, hvad alle her anser for at være særdeles foruroligende.
In the majority of Member States, and in particular in my own, Belgium, public disaffection with politics is great. This is encouraging the rise of the extreme right — a particularly worrying development, as the House will agree.
Man kan naturligvis — og det vil jeg gøre — henvise til den sociale marginalisering, men det skal rigtignok siges, at udviklingen i den måde, de politiske beslutninger bliver truffet på, ikke er egnet til at forbedre situationen.
Social exclusion is, of course, a contributing factor, but it has to be said that the development of the way in which political decisions are taken is not designed to improve matters.
Og den omstændighed, at de politiske beføjelser mere og mere fjerner sig fra borgeren for at rykke op
Political power is moving further and further away from the people and is being exercised increasingly at supranational and, par ticularly, Community level. This complicates the
Lannoye på et overnationalt og i særdeleshed et europæisk plan, komplicerer situationen og gør det endnu mere vanskeligt for den europæiske borger at gennemskue den måde, han bliver behandlet på, når det gælder spørgsmål, der i højeste grad berører ham, f.eks. sociale problemer, problemer i forbindelse med Uvskvaütet og miljøproblemer.
LANNOYE situation and makes it increasingly difficult for the people of Europe to understand how issues which directly concern them — social and environmental problems, problems relating to the quality of people's lives — are being dealt with.
Hr. formand, kære kolleger, til slut vü jeg gerne minde Dem om den erklæring, der blev vedtaget af de tolv nationale parlamenter, i hvert fald af en delegation fra disse tolv parlamenter, og en delegation fra vort Parlament i Rom sidste år.
Finally, Mr President, I shall remind the House of the statement adopted last year in Rome by the national governments of the Twelve, or at least by their delegations, and a delegation from the European Parliament.
Det er tilstrækkeligt at sammenligne denne tekst med det, der bliver foreslået os i dag, for at konstatere, at der er en verden til forskel, og jeg tror, at vi ville gøre os selv til grin, hvis vi accepterede den.
There is a world of difference between that document and the one before us today, which I believe we would be foolish to approve.
Europa-Parlamentet har det held, at tre af medlemsstaternes parlamenter har besluttet at afvente dets dom, før de ratificerer Traktaterne.
Three national parliaments have decided to wait for the verdict of the European Parliament before ratifying the agreements.
Jeg tror, at det er en chance, vi har fået, og det ville være ulykkeUgt, om vi under påskud af at udvise reaUsme — en realisme, som jeg i øvrigt bestrider — afgav en nuanceret og i det store og hele positiv udtalelse om et projekt, der tydeligvis ikke er positivt.
This gives Parliament an opportunity to exert its influence ; and I believe that it would be unfortunate if, in the name of realism — realism which, moreover, I dispute — we were to deliver a qualified but, overall, positive opinion on a programme which is clearly far from positive.
På min gruppes vegne anmoder jeg Dem derfor om at afgive en klart negativ udtalelse om de forslag, der er blevet os forelagt. Jeg takker Dem, hr. formand.
On behalf of my group, therefore, I call on Parliament to deliver an unequivocally negative opinion on the proposals now before us.
de la Malene (RDE). — (FR) Hr. formand, mine damer og herrer, man kan ikke sige, at resultatet af den seneste konference i Maastricht har været en overraskelse — hverken når det gælder procedure, scenario euer generalplan.
DE LA MALÈNE (RDE). — (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it could not be said that the Maastricht Summit produced any surprises, either in terms of procedure — the way in which it was conducted — or in terms of the content of the agreements that were concluded.
Jeg kommer således til de udfordringer, der efter min opfattelse burde have været taget op på topmødet i Maastricht, og for det første udligningen af det foruroügende demokratiske underskud, som vi alle længe har fordømt. Anden udfordring, der ikke er mindre: Den udfordring, der Ugger i den igangværende Uberalisering i østlandene, de totalitære regi mers fald og den reaktion, som de folkeslag, der er befriet for et åg, de har båret i årtier, nu venter af vore demokratiske institutioner.
A number of challenges should, I believe, have been taken up at the Maastricht Summit: firstly, making good the democratic deficit, which our group has long called for ; secondly, and no less importantly, a response to the liberalization that has been taking place in the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union since the fall of the totalitarian regimes — a response, in terms of democratic support, that the people of these countries, newly liberated from décades of oppression, are expecting from us.
Men hvad bringer Maastricht-topmødet os?
What was achieved at the Maastricht Summit ?
Ikke stort, må man sige.
Not a great deal, it has to be said.
Der blev for hdt siden talt om roderi — ordet er måske Udt barsk, for de store linjer i forslagene forekommer mig at være klare — men for så vidt angår beslutningsprocesserne, er der kun gjort meget ringe fremskridt.
That is perhaps unfair, as the overall design of the proposals is, I believe, quite clear. As far as our decisionmaking procedures are concerned, however, very little progress has been made.
Ganske vist opnår Europa-Parlamentet i en række spørgsmål ret til fælles beslut ningstagning.
Certainly, the European Parliament has been given powers of codecision in a number of areas.
Hvis man skal være mere konkret, må man sige, at der er tale om en vetoret med — det er noget underligt noget — en afgørelse, der er truffet med enstemmighed i Rådet, ledsaget af denne veto ret på et givet tidspunkt.
To be more exact, it has been given — and this is curious — a right of veto on certain decisions requiring unanimity in the Council.
Det er en mekanisme, der i det mindste er mærkeug.
This procedure is, at the very least, bizarre.
Parlamentet, der aUerede rådede over mange midler til at tilkendegive sin mening, om end den aldrig træffer den endelige afgørelse, har i øvrigt nu fem, hvortil er føjet — óg det er temmeUg usædvanligt — retten til at büve informeret.
The European Parliament, which already had a number of means at its disposal for expressing its opinion — without ever having the final decision — now has five such mechanisms, to which has been added the right of information.
Hvad angår sikkerhedspohtik og international poütik, skal vi informeres om, hvad der vil büve besluttet.
In the areas of foreign and security policy, we will be informed of the decisions to be taken.
Det er en bagatel, men jeg mener, at borgerne bør informeres, og at parlamentarikerne ikke blot bør deltage i beslutningen, men at de Ugeledes selv bør beslutte.
This is a small concession : I believe, however, that the people of Europe should be informed of decisions and that the European Parliament should not only be associated with the decisionmaking process, but also have decisionmaking powers.
Det er tydeligvis ikke tilfældet.
That is clearly not the case.
Hvad proceduren angår: et års forhandUnger, der næst to døgns debat.
As to the way in which the summit was conducted, after a year of negotiations there were two days and nights of discussions.
Som altid fik vi under disse dages debat at vide, at det gik meget dårligt, at det ville blive en hård dag, at man ikke var sikker på at nå frem til et resultat, og så — som ved et mirakel i sidste minut, fem minutter i tolv — blev det sagt, at der var tale om et vidunderUgt kompromis — der dog ikke overraskede nogen, De kan være rolig — og så næste dag sagde stats- og regeringscheferne til ætermedierne: »Vi har oplevet et historisk øjeblik«.
As is usually the case, during those two days of discussions we were told that things were going very badly, that the next day there would be hard bargaining, that there was no guarantee that an agreement would be reached — and then, as if by magic, at the last minute, we were told that a marvellous compromise had been found : this came as no surprise to anyone, I can assure the House. The following day, the Heads of State and Government of the various Member States went on television to announce that an 'historic agreement' had been concluded.
De franske medier udbasunerede, at Frankrig havde vundet, og på sin side meddelte Storbritannien, at det havde vundet tre-nul.
The French media declared with a fanfare that France had won a great victory, and the British press, for its part, declared that the United Kingdom had won three-nil.
Rådets formand triumferede ligeledes — beskedent eller ubeskedent, men han triumferede. Alle triumferede!
The President of the European Council also won a victory, modest or otherwise.
Det er en procedure, et scenario, som vi oplever næsten hver gang.
We witness the same procedure virtually every time.
Hver gang Det Europæiske Råd træder sammen, er der tale om hårde og vanskelige dage, men i sidste minut findes et beundringsværdigt kompromis, som lader alle vinde.
Every time the European Council has a meeting there is hard bargaining, there are difficulties, and at the last minute a miraculous compromise is reached which ensures that everybody wins.
Jeg vü derfor gerne vende tilbage til denne procedure for den fæUes beslutningstagning for, kære kolleger, at henlede Deres opmærksomhed på et bestemt punkt.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to one aspect of the codecision procedure.
Der er faktisk tale om en halv snes punkter hvor reglerne om den fæUes beslutningstagning skal gælde.
There are, indeed, a number of areas in which the codecision procedure will apply.
Jeg nævner f.eks. det indre marked.
I shall take the internal market as an example.
Hr. Delors sagde for Udt siden, at reglerne for fælles beslutningstagning skal gælde for det indre marked.
Mr Delors said earlier that codecision will apply in relation to completion of the internal market.
Ja, det er helt fint, men det indre marked skal være gennemført pr. 1. januar 1993.
All very well, but the internal market is due to be completed by 1 January 1993.
Under disse omstændigheder kan jeg ikke se, på hvilken måde vor indgriben kan være afgørende for gennemførelsen af dette indre marked, der skal være virkeliggjort på det tidspunkt, hvor vi får ret til fælles beslutnings tagning.
That being the case, I fail to see how Parliament can possibly make a decisive contribution to the completion of the internal market, if the internal market will be close to completion by the time our powers of codecision come into effect.
Hvad angår international pohtik og sikkerhedspolitikken, har jeg netop sagt, hvordan det forholder sig.
The present document is more or less identical to the document that we analysed at some length back in April.
Heller ikke hvad substansen angår, er der tale om overraskelser.
As I have already said, Parliament will be no more than informed on foreign and security policy.
Vi har — måske med lidt mindre
Why in 1996 and not now, we might wonder ?
Vi havde analyseret det indgående, og vi har stort set fundet det igen.
DE LA MALENE single currency — I believe that we are justified in expressing some concern.
Det er jeg slet ikke sikker på, fordi der er længe til 1997 og 1999, og desuden er der en undtagelse.
political convergence — although, of course, I do want economic convergence.
Hvor langt vil man i 1999 være nået med den økonomiske og monetære konvergens, hvad der i virkeligheden vil sige den politiske konvergens? Hvis der ikke er opnået politisk konvergens, vil der heller ikke være opnået økonomisk konvergens. Jeg tror ikke på den økonomiske konvergens, hvis der ikke også er opnået politisk konvergens.
And where will the German mark be in 1999 ?
Derfor ønsker jeg, at den må blive tilvejebragt, naturligvis.
These, then, are my concerns and the areas in which I believe there are shortcomings.
Og desuden, hvordan vil det for holde sig med Marken i 1999?
All in all, as I said earlier, this document is more or less a rehash of the Luxembourg 'non-paper'.
Jeg ved ikke, hvordan det vil gå, det er der ingen, der ved, men hvis man vil beholde Marken uændret, vil man få besvær med at indføre ecu'en som erstatning for den. Men jeg vil ikke være pessimist.
We supported that document overall and we shall therefore support this document overall. We shall examine the text of the agreements in greater detail today.
Der er taget et initiativ, og det glæder jeg mig over, om end jeg er lidt bekymret over den såkaldte uigenkaldelighed.
We cannot, of course, give a final opinion on the agreements until we have analysed them fully. We shall not, therefore commit ourselves yet
Nuvel, så meget om bekymringerne, og så meget om utilstrækkelighederne! derne!
— although, as I said, our preliminary assessment is favourable overall.
Allerførst politikken.
Firstly, let us look at the development of common policies.
Vi har fået at vide, at det politiske Europa omsider var sat på skinner.
We have been told that this is finally on track.
Der hævdes nogle få udenrigspolitiske principper og andre — endnu færre — principper om forsvaret.
A few principles have been agreed regarding foreign policy, and even fewer regarding defence.
Det er tekster, som det er vanskeligt at forstå, og beslutningsmetoderne er aldeles dunkle, ja næsten uforståelige.
The texts of these agreements are difficult to understand and the decisionmaking procedures provided for are thoroughly obscure and virtually incomprehensible.
Jeg tror, at når statscheferne og masse medierne har sagt, at dette er den politiske myndighed, som Det Europæiske Fællesskab har brug for, så har de lagt alt, alt for meget i ordene.
I think that the Heads of State and Government and the media exaggerated wildly when they declared that the foundations of the Community's future common foreign and defence policies had been laid.
Det er ikke sidste gang, vi har hørt den påstand, at det er nødvendigt — det ved vi — at råde over en politisk styrke i Europa.
We know that the Community needs common foreign and defence policies — we have heard it said a thousand times.
Det er blevet sagt endnu en gang.
Now it has been said once again.
For så vidt angår det demokratiske underskud, behøver jeg ikke insistere, fordi hele denne forsamling har interesseret sig for det.
There is no need for me to speak at length about the democratic deficit, as Parliament is united in this respect.
Vi har fået nogle smuler — det vil jeg ikke komme ind på igen — men hverken for så vidt os selv angår, eller for så vidt angår de nationale parlamenter, har man betragtet substansspørgsmålet.
A few concessions have been made to the European Parliament — I will not go over them again — but the fundamental problem has not been tackled, either where the European Parliament is concerned or where the national parliaments are concerned.
Der var blevet rettet en enstemmig appel fra samtlige formænd for de nationale parlamenter.
The leaders of the national parliaments made a unanimous appeal.
Det lader ikke til, at denne appel er blevet hørt.
It appears that this appeal has fallen on deaf ears.
Demokratisk underskud i går, demo kratisk underskud i dag, ingen forandring.
There was a democratic deficit yesterday and there is a democratic deficit today — no change.
Så vi sætter spørgsmålstegn ved realiteten af det politiske Europa.
The Community's response to the crises in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union has, however, been wholly inadequate.
Hvis der fandtes et politisk Europa, hvis der fandtes en politisk vilje, så burde man have givet et minimum af svar.
We are led to wonder if the Community does in fact have an external identity. If it had, and if it had the political will, it would produce an adequate response.
Tror man, at de mekanismer, der er blevet indført, vil åbne mulighed for at gøre det? Nej!
We do not believe, however, that the mechanisms that have been put in place will be sufficient to allow such a response.
Det er ikke særlig seriøst, og det er det, jeg vil slutte med. Vi stiller os altså alt i alt positivt, vi vil se på teksterne, men i øjeblikket vil vi ikke tage stilling.
Our initial assessment is therefore favourable overall, although we shall reserve final judgement until we have studied the text of the agreements more closely.
Vandemeulebroucke (ARC). — (NL) Hr. formand, kære kolleger, jeg må ærligt tilstå, at resultatet fra
That is somewhat disturbing, in view of the fact that the internal market is due to start in the near future.
Europa-Parlamentets forhandlinger
Progress has undoubtedly been achieved in this area.
Vandemeulebroucke tricht-aftalen er for os ikke nogen sluttekst.
I am not convinced, because 1997 and 1999, are a long way off, and because an exception has been made for one Member State.
Vin derne i Maastrichtaftalen er for os ikke nogen sluttekst.
If an exception has been made for one Member State, the other Member States will want one made for them too.
Vinderne i Maastricht er ikke de euro pæiske borgere, vinderne er egentlig de økonomiske sektorer, og det er en skam.
There can be no economic convergence without political convergence. I do not believe in economic convergence without
(Bifald) topmødet i Maastricht er bedre end forventet.
VANDEMEULEBROUCKE (ARC). — (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I must say in all honesty that the outcome of the Maastricht Summit is better than was expected.
Det vil jeg gratulere det nederlandske formandskab med. Vi er enige i, at der oprettes en Europæisk Monetær Union. Dette er et enormt plus.
I should like to congratulate the Dutch Presidency on that.
Dette står i skærende kontrast til slutaftalen om Den Europæiske Politiske Union.
That is an extremely positive development and forms a stark contrast with the final agreement on European Political Union.
Der er andre positive punkter såsom optagelsen af kapitlerne kultur og undervisning, en kulturparagraf, der kræver respekt for regionale og sproglige forskelligheder.
There are other positive aspects such as the inclusion of a chapter on culture and education in which the section on culture calls for regional and linguistic diversity to be respected.
Altså enhed i forskelhgheden.
Unity in diversity, as it were.
Vi er ligeledes enige i viljen til større soUdaritet med de fattigere regioner og lande i Det Europæiske FæUesskab og således i oprettelsen af en samhørighedsfond.
We also agree with the determination to seek more solidarity between richer and poorer regions and countries in the European Community and therefore also with the creation of a cohesion fund.
Men der er også en stribe sager, hvor det hgger Udt tungere. Tillad mig at belyse tre punkter.
But there are other points which are not quite so straightforward.
Men selv formanden bør vide, at denne karakteristik ikke altid er korrekt, og at den ofte anvendes der, hvor der i forvejen er mange negative sider, som i sidste ende vil tage overhånd.
VANDEMEULEBROUCKE great number of negative elements which will ultimately obscure all the rest.
Først og fremmest Den Europæiske Unions demo kratiske lødighed.
First and foremost, the democratic nature of European Union.
Europa-Parlamentet bhver næppe inddraget i udenrigspolitikken, i sikkerhedspolitik ken og lige så hdt i samarbejdet i forbindelse med retsvæsen og indenrigsanliggender.
The European Parliament is hardly involved at all in matters of foreign policy and security policy and even less in matters concerning justice and internal affairs.
Rent sikkerhedspoUtisk får Europa-Parlamentet konkurrence fra parlamentariske forsamUnger såsom Den Vesteuropæiske Union, et ikke-direkte valgt organ og som sådant fundamentalt udemokratisk.
As far as security policy is concerned, the European Parliament is in competition with par liamentary assemblies such as the Western European Union, which is not a directly elected body and is thus fundamentally undemocratic.
Jeg ved godt, at Europa-Parlamentets beføjelser bUver styrket på en række områder, men der er for mange beslutnings procedurer, de er ekstra indviklede og er fortsat ekstra uigennemskueüge.
In addition, the European Parliament's powers have been increased in a number of areas, I am aware of that, but the decisionmaking procedures are too numerous, still extraordinarily complex and lack transparency.
Jeg vil gerne opholde mig lidt ved nogle punkter, som giver særlig anledning til bekymring.
I should like to focus on a number of points which make us particularly uneasy.
Jeg tror, at valget af strengt tekniske, finansielle kriterier i for bindelse med den endehge optagelse i Den Økonomiske og Monetære Union kan være med til, at beslutningerne fra topmødet, i stedet for at være et skridt hen imod alle landes deltagelse i den euro pæiske unionsproces, for nogle af landene vil være et skridt til distancering fra den mest avancerede del af Unionen.
I think that the choice of strictly technical, public criteria in the final drive towards economic and monetary union can be conceived through the decisions taken at the summit meeting not as a means of enabling all countries to participate in the unification of Europe but rather for some of them as a move which isolates certain countries from the advanced group where unification is concerned.
Vi tror, at der i det mindste på dette stadie bør gribes ind af FæUesskabet — og jeg mener ikke kun finansielt, men også politisk, så dette store skel kan fjernes.
We believe that, for the time being at least, the Community must take action — and I am referring not only to financial but also to political intervention — until this yawning gap can be closed.
For det andet den økonomiske samhørighed.
Secondly: economic cohesion.
Det er uden tvivl et positivt punkt i Maastricht-beslutningen, men det kan undre, at racismen i modsætning til den økonomiske samhørighed kommer med i en protokol, og det kan rejse spørgsmålet, om dette ikke vil skabe tvivl med hensyn til opfyldelsen af flere generelle betingelser, som er opstillet.
This is certainly a positive aspect of the Maastricht decisions but it raises a number of questions such as why this form of racism finds its way into economic cohesion and why it is incorporated in a protocol. Perhaps this will give rise to doubts as to how some of the principles that have been laid down will actually be applied in practice.