natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Skønt det ikke har været fremført under forhandlingen i dag, men ved tidligere lejligheder, synes nogle ærede medlemmer at mene, at artikel 31 i Euratom-Traktaten udgør et svagere retsgrundlag end andre, som man kunne have valgt.
Perhaps I may tell the House why the Commission chose Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty as the appropriate legal base and why it was logical so to do. Indeed, this is a position which, as I have already indicated, I was confronted with when I attended the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection a few weeks ago.
Det er ikke rigtigt.
It was the case I put then.
En retsakt, der gennemføres på basis af artikel 31 i Euratom-Traktaten, har naturligvis nøjagtig samme gyldighed som enhver anden af Fællesskabets retsregler. ler.
I would like to remind honourable Members that in the preamble to the Euratom Treaty the Community declares itself anxious to create the conditions of safety necessary to eliminate hazards to the life and health of the public.
Med andre ord, forslaget vil fastlægge nogle grund læggende sikkerhedsnormer.
Is not that the logic of the argument? In that respect I should like to remind the House of an additional matter.
Det er naturligvis artikel 31 i Euratom-Traktaten, der er den juridiske mekanisme bag denne aktion. Vi har ikke kun at gøre med de snævre præmisser, som fru Bloch von Blottnitz forudsagde i sit indlæg for lidt siden.
Following Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz's report on the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield in the United Kingdom which was an issue which provoked a great number of passionate debates in this House — and it will be familiar with Honourable Members — following the Sellafield report, the Commission convened a meeting of the Article 31 Group of Experts to determine whether events at Sellafield bore any implications for our policy on basic standards.
Ydermere, hvis man læser teksten til Kommissionens forslag, så må man da konkludere, at artikel 31 faktisk er mere end slet og ret en juridisk mekanisme.
And similarly, immediately after Chernobyl, the Article 31 Group of Experts was invited to give a provisional opinion on radioactivity in foodstuffs.
Hele forslaget er bygget op omkring de procedurer, der er formuleret i artikel 31 i Traktaten, og som har været brugt lige siden — det gælder i særdeleshed dem, der drejer sig om konsultationer med nationale eksperter.
Indeed can I commend to the House in this connection the Commission communication to the Council of 20 August 1986 on the development of Community measures for the application of Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty, Health and Safety.
Og at
In neither
Hele dokumentet og hele erklæringen fra Kommissionen er næsten udelukkende orienteret efter markedsargumenter.
Clinton Davis naturally ask the House to support the proposition I have advanced.
ivrigt efter at afprøve sine nye beføjelser ifølge artikel 100A; vi forstår, hvor tiltrækkende det er for med lemmerne så vidt muligt at inddrage alle forslag fra Kommissionen under den nye samarbejdsprocedure.
WEBER (S), Chairperson of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection. — (DE) Mr President, first of all I must say that it is very regrettable that we Members of this House do not enjoy the same length of speaking time as the Members of the Commission.
Men jeg må understrege, at i dette tilfælde diskuterer vi noget, der angår folkesundheden. Det er dette snarere end gennemførelsen af det indre marked, der er kernen i det, vi forsøger at gøre.
of these cases — and I do want to make this point very strongly — did any committee of this House nor any Honourable Member of this House approach me or the Commission to argue that what I will call the Article 31 route was inapplicable.
Hvis Parlamentet ser på dette på bag grund af det indre marked, så anlægger det en helt anden synsvinkel end dem, der betragter udviklingen af maksimumstoleranceværdier som en politik, hvor der alene skal tages hensyn til sundhed og sikkerhed og ikke til noget andet.
We have discussed this issue at great length in committee and I should like to put three questions to you, and would also appreciate an answer to them from the Council.
Det sidste spørgsmål, hr. kommissær: De talte om samarbejdet mellem Kommissionen og Parlamentet; vi kender dette gode samarbejde fra udvalget.
Mr President, I do not need to say that the Commission wants this proposal to become law and in this res pect I would remind the House that Article 31 pro vides for voting by qualified majority, a characteristic shared with Article 100 A of the EEC Treaty.
Men De ved lige så godt som alle i Europa-Parlamentet og som vore udvalgsmedlemmer, at dersom denne pro cedure finder sted på grundlag af Euratom-Traktaten, er Europa-Parlamentets medvirken slut med afstemningen i Parlamentet.
If we succeed in bringing about an agreement at the Council then the proposal will have the same force in law as any other proposal supported by any other article of any of the treaties.
I et for befolkningen, for vore 320 millioner fællesskabsborgere så livsvigtigt spørgsmål kan vi ikke lade proceduren foregå under udelukkelse af offentligheden.
Firstly: How will the Council and Commission settle the problem of exports if they act under the Euratom Treaty?
Hvis vi vil nå frem til et frugtbart og godt samarbejde mellem Kommissionen, Rådet og Parlamentet, skal vi sikre, at offentlig heden — og dermed Parlamentet — har yderligere mulighed for at medvirke under det videre forløb af fastsættelsen af maksimumstoleranceværdier for radioaktivitet i levnedsmidler.
There is no way at present of having a mixed procedure of both the Euratom Treaty and the EEC Treaty, because then there would be no clear guide lines about Parliament's participation.
Artikel 100 A er indsat for at lette gennemførelsen af det indre marked. I artikel 31 i Euratom-Traktaten fastlægges, hvorledes disse toleranceværdier kan fast sættes.
Some Honourable Members seem to have taken the view — not today but on previous occasions — that Article 31 of Euratom represents a weaker legal base than others which could have been selected.
Og jeg vil gerne sige til Parlamentet, lige så stærkt som dem, der har givet udtryk for den mod satte opfattelse, at efter Kommissionens opfattelse må artikel 31 af logiske grunde og af hensyn til præcedens og konsekvens være retsgrundlaget for dette forslag.
That is not the case. A piece of legislation which comes into being on the basis of Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty has of course exactly the same force as any other piece of Community law.
Hvis der findes et problem, hvor offentligheden har ret til at vide, hvorledes der gås frem, og til at se, hvorledes dens udsendinge og delegerede forholder sig, så er det et sådant spørgsmål. Kun ved hjælp af proceduren i henhold til EØF-Traktaten er det sikret, at vi virkelig har mulighed for at medvirke.
Third question: If you deny that it is a question of the internal market, then how can the Commission's pro posal state that the Community has taken provisional measures to ensure that certain agricultural products may only enter the Community under specific common procedures which protect public health and simultaneously maintain the unity of the market and prevent deflections of trade?
At hen syn til et godt og frugtbart samarbejde mellem de europæiske institutioner anmoder vi indtrængende Kommissionen og Rådet om at gå ind på dette for slag og stemme for vor retsopfattelse.
The Commission's whole document and arguments deal almost exclusively with the market arguments.
Weber (S), formand for Udvalget om Miljø- og Sund hedanliggender og Forbrugerbeskyttelse. — (DE) Hr. formand, jeg finder det først og fremmest meget be klageligt, at vi som medlemmer ikke har mulighed for at fremsætte vore argumenter i samme længde, som Kommissionen kan.
The Commission understands perfectly well and is sensitive to the fact that Parliament is keen to explore its new powers under the Single Act. We appreciate the value to this House of Article 100 A, we under stand the attractiveness to Members of taking Commission's proposals, wherever possible, into the full cooperation procedure.
Men nu mine spørgsmål som udvalgsformand.
But I have to stress that in this case we are discussing a matter of public health.
Vi har i udvalget drøftet dette emne længe, og jeg vil gerne stille Dem tre spørgsmål ; jeg ville være taknemmelig, om også Rådet kunne svare på disse spørgsmål.
It is that rather than the completion of the internal market that goes to the very heart of what we are seeking to do.
Når De så gerne vil det, skulle De da sige : Mange tak, Parlament, nu kan jeg gøre det!
Of course, as in so many other instances, aspects of the internal market are relevant.
Men jeg må tvivle stærkt på Deres ord, hvis det ad bagvejen på en eller anden måde skal kobles fra igen.
But what is the fundamental driving force?
Der er for øjeblikket ikke nogen mulighed for at vælge en blandet fremgangsmåde, hvilket Euratom-Traktat plus EØF-Traktat fastsætter, for så ville spørgsmålet om Parlamentets deltagelse være helt uafklaret.
For Parliament to look on this proposal from the point of view of the internal market is to adopt a fundamentally dif ferent perspective from those who would see the development of radiation standards as a policy in which considerations of health and safety and no other have to predominate.
Hvorledes kan det ske?
We know this good cooperation from the committee.
For det tredje: Når De siger, at det ikke er et spørgsmål om det indre marked, hvorledes kan der så
But you know just as well as anyone in this House and as well as our committee members that if this procedure goes under the Euratom Treaty, then cooperation with Parliament ending in a vote in this House is doomed.
I henhold til artikel 100 A kan kun nogle regeringer af sundhedsbeskyttelsesgrunde fastsætte lavere værdier, i henhold til Euratom derimod ikke.
Article 100 A is in place to facilitate the completion of the internal market.
Dette er dog punkterne, og vi har her opregnet flere vægtige.
Article 31 of Euratom defines the means by which radiation standards are to be fixed.
Derfor vil jeg gerne vide: Hvorfor takker De os ikke for, at vi så at sige ruller retsgrundlaget ud for Dem som en løber, for at De kan gøre det, som ligger Dem på sinde : at bringe sundhedsbeskyttelsen
If ever there were an issue where the public is entitled to know what the score is and to see what their elected representatives are doing, then this is the one. It is
Det ligger også os på sinde, og vi er således af samme mening.
My legal services and I have given very great consideration to the points at issue.
(Bifald) kring det indre marked må vide for det andet argument.
only the EEC Treaty which guarantees us our chance to be involved.
Det forholder sig naturligvis i mange spørgsmål således, at sager, der angår det indre marked, hænger sammen med andre forslag.
That is why we urge the Commission and Council in the interests of a fruitful and worthwile cooperation between the European institutions to grant our request and adopt our approach to the legal basis.
Det afgørende her er, at vi har at gøre med sundhedsmæssige spørgsmål.
If that is what you want, then you would be say ing to Parliament: 'Thank you, Parliament, now I can go ahead and act!'
Argumentet bliver ikke bedre ved at blive gentaget, og jeg har fremført det den ene gang efter den anden i mine tidligere bemærkninger.
But your statement makes me doubt very much whether that is what you want.
Så jeg siger, at dette ikke udelukkende er baseret på markedet; markedet udgør en relativt mindre del af det.
I really do not understand; perhaps you could explain it to me.
Fru Weber sagde dernæst, at hvis Parlamentet gav efter for Kommissionen i denne sag, ville det på en mig uforståelig måde skabe et ynkeligt præcedens.
I shall try and deal with the issues other than debating points which have been made in the questions addressed to me.
Undskyld, men man må vurdere hver enkelt sag for sig.
I shall deal first with the second point which was raised by Mrs Weber.
Jeg mener ikke, at dette skaber nogen som helst form for præcedens.
I am grateful to her for what she had to say about my being involved with the Committee on the Environment on numerous occasions and in numerous debates.
Det, der er vigtigt, er at få retsgrundlaget i orden.
She asked why Foreign Ministers and not Health Ministers deal with this issue.
Så det er sådan, jeg er gået frem.
That is of course a matter for the Council.
Fich (S). — Hr. formand, jeg vil også gerne stille et spørgsmål, som ligger i forlængelse af det spørgsmål, fru Bloch von Blottnitz netop har stillet.
I would be perfectly happy — and have always expressed the view that I would have been perfectly happy — for this matter to have been dealt with by the Environment Council.
Er dette ikke den afgørende indholdsmæssige forskel mellem de to retsgrundlag, og betyder det ikke, at hvis man ønsker den bedst mulige beskyttelse for befolkningen, så vælger man artikel 100A, men hvis man ønsker frihandel, total frihandel, så vælger man artikel 31 i Euratom-Traktaten? ten?
There is a difference in forum but there is no differ ence in the basic proposition that a Council is a Council is a Council. Really, the title of the Council does not matter at all as far as the argument is concerned.
Med hensyn til, hvad der er blevet sagt i denne betænkning — og jeg må vende tilbage til dette punkt — hvordan kan man så på basis af de argumenter, som jeg ret så omhyggeligt har fremført i dag, påstå, at artikel 31 ikke — og jeg bruger disse ord igen — kan anvendes?
Under Article 108 some governments can only lay down lower values for public health reasons, but not under the Euratom Treaty.
Jeg tror ikke engang, at ordføreren har argumenteret herfor i dag.
That is what it is all about; we have gone into several important reasons here.
Det står i betænkningen, men der er overhovedet intet grundlag for det.
But you do not seem to have grasped the point.
Clinton Davis, medlem af Kommissionen. — (EN) Hr. formand, jeg vil ikke gentage de argumenter, som jeg allerede har fremført langsomt og omhyggeligt, så man fuldt ud kunne forstå dem.
That is why I would like to know : why are you not grateful to us for having rolled out the legal basis before you like a carpet, so that you can do what you really want to, namely protect public health as much as possible.
Det er ikke altid let at forstå dem i tolkningen, uden at der går noget tabt.
That is what we are also concerned about, and so we really are on the same side.
Det virker, som om visse ærede medlemmer vil antyde, at jeg ikke har udvist flid og omhu i denne sag!
She then went on to argue that I had said in my earlier remarks that this was not a case for the internal market.
Det er ikke tilfældet.
I did not say that.
Mine juridiske tjenester og jeg selv har meget omhyggeligt overvejet de punkter, det drejer sig om.
What I said — and I was very careful about it — was that arguments relating to the internal market are subsumed by the primacy of the other argument.
Jeg går nu over til det, som fru Bloch von Blottnitz sagde, nemlig at hvis der var et andet retsgrundlag, ville der komme andre resultater.
Of course, in so many aspects matters relating to the internal market are caught up with other proposals.
Det kalder jeg at vende op og ned på tingene.
The fundamental point here is that we are dealing with questions affecting health.
Man må naturligvis se på, hvor godt det juridiske grundlag er, og De må undskylde, at jeg mener, at det netop er, hvad ordføreren ikke rigtig har gjort.
Repetition does not improve the argument and I have made it over and over again in my earlier remarks.
Hun har ikke ydet de argumenter angående artikel 31, som jeg har prøvet at fremføre i dag, og som udvalget burde være bekendt med, fuld retfærdighed.
So I say that this is not exclusively based on the market; the market is a relatively minor aspect of it.
Det er, undskyld jeg siger det, argumentet om, at den ikke kan anvendes, der er helt uantageligt.
I do not think this establishes a precedent one way or the other.
Formanden. — Forhandlingen er afsluttet.
The important thing is to get the legal base right.
Afstemningen finder sted i næste afstemningstid.
So this is how I have approached it.
Jeg skal prøve at besvare de reelle, om ikke de polemiske spørgsmål, der er blevet stillet til mig. Jeg vil først behandle det andet punkt, som fru Weber rejste.
FICH (S). — (DA) Mr President, I should also like to ask a question which follows on from the question just put by Mrs Bloch von Blottnitz.
Jeg er taknemmelig for, hvad hun havde at sige om, at jeg ved talrige lejligheder og under utallige for handlinger havde haft at gøre med Miljøudvalget. Hun spurgte, hvorfor det er udenrigsministrene og ikke sundhedministrene, der tager sig af denne sag.
Is it not the case, Mr Commissioner, that Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty and Article 100 A of the EEC Treaty are completely identical where the Council decisionmaking procedure is concerned, since in both cases a qualified majority is required, but with the one distinction that under Article 100 A one or more Member States can go further and impose lower maximum limits in order to provide better protection for their populations?
Det er naturligvis noget, der angår Rådet.
Is this not the crucial difference in content between the two legal bases?
Jeg ville have været helt tilfreds — og det har jeg altid sagt — hvis Rådet af miljøministre havde taget sig af denne sag.
And does it not mean that, if a country wants the best possible protection for its population, it chooses Article 100 A whereas if it wants free trade, unrestricted free trade, it chooses Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty?
Men det er et spørgsmål, der har enorm politisk betydning.
With regard to what has been said in this report — and I have to come back to this point — how in the light of the argument that I have adduced with some care today, can it be argued that Article 31 is — and I use the word again — inapplicable?
Det ændrer ikke argumenterne.
It appears in the report but it has no substance at all.
Det drejer sig om et andet forum, men der ikke nogen forskel med hensyn til den grundlæggende idé, at et Råd er et Råd er et Råd.
CLINTON DAVIS, Member of the Commission. — Mr President, I do not intend to repeat the arguments I made earlier with some care and with a lack of pace so that they could be fully absorbed.
Det har faktisk ikke den ringeste betydning for argumentationen, hvad det er for et Råd.
It is not always very easy to absorb them without missing something in translation.
Det har jeg ikke sagt. Hvad jeg sagde — og det var jeg meget omhyggelig med — var, at argumenterne om
It is as though some honourable Members are suggest ing I approached this matter in a way which lacks care
Formanden. — Næste punkt på dagsordenen er be tænkning (dok.
Well that is putting the cart before the horse.
A282/87) af Musso for Udvalget om Regionalpolitik og Fysisk Planlægning om bjergområder. der.
Surely you have to examine the propriety of the legal base and, with respect, this is
Derfor må vi sætte alt ind på, at disse bejerområder ikke affolkes.
Clinton Davis what the rapporteur has not really done.
Musso (RDE), ordforer. — (FR) Hr. formand, den foreliggende betænkning er blevet udarbejdet på initiativ af Udvalget om Regionalpolitik og Fysisk Plan lægning, som i øvrigt enstemmigt vedtog konklusionerne heri i maj.
DALSASS (PPE), draftsman of an opinion for the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. — (DE) Mr President, this House has often debated mountain areas, on the occasion, for example, of the fixing of the farm prices, or the debate on the structural measures, or as the rapporteur has just mentioned, the debate on the EEC budget.
Jeg håber, at det er gået op for alle, at miljøbeskyttelse og landskabspleje aldrig kan foretages uden eller imod bønderne.
The rapporteur has done an excellent job and I would like to congratulate him on his report.
Kun bonden, mener jeg, er i stand til at sikre landskabspleje på lang sigt.
It is of course clear that for various reasons mountain regions will always need some form of aid.
Ingen anden institution eller organisation er i stand til at gøre det.
They are economically weak and particularly prone to becoming depopulated.
Der for spiller netop landbruget i bjergområderne en sær lig rolle.
People do not want to go and live in mountain regions because the standard of living is lower there than else where and their income is lower.
Uden landbrugerne, det vil jeg gerne under strege endnu en gang, kan bjergområderne ikke bevares. res.
That is why we must do everything possible to prevent these areas from becoming depopulated.
Derfor lægger betænkningen hovedvægten på landbruget, miljøet, forbedringen af transportinfrastrukturerne og de små industriers rolle.
A 2-82/87), on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy and Regional Planning, on the mountain regions.
Iværksættelsen af et sådant program forudsætter, at man kan gennemføre integrerede programmer og planer i stor målestok med henblik på at udvikle en række aktioner, som betænkningen næsten beskriver punkt for punkt.
A certain population density is necessary anywhere in the rural areas but especially in mountain regions so that the most important and basic social services can be guaranteed, because without them no one would want to go and live there.
Derfor har Udvalget om Landbrug, Fiskeri og Ernæring afgivet en af mig affattet udtalelse og deri foreslået en hel række foranstaltninger, som De kan læse i bilaget til betænkningen.
Furthermore, and this is very important, we must safe guard agricultural activity in mountain regions for reasons of environmental protection, landscape conservation, ecology.
Kun hvis disse foranstalt ninger virkelig træffes, kan man forvente, at bønderne bliver boende i bjergområderne, kan man forlange af dem, at de også i fremtiden yder et så vigtigt stykke arbejde for almenheden.
I would even go so far as to say that if the mountain regions were to be depleted that would constitute a danger to the ecological balance.
Jeg har set, at nogle af disse forslag er blevet overtraget af ordføreren, andre der imod ikke.
What happens in the mountains can also affect those living in the valleys, for better or for worse.
Igen og igen er der blevet talt om bjergområderne og henvist til nødvendigheden af at træffe særlige for anstaltninger for dem.
Some regions in the north which are not so high but which have a harsh climate have the same dif ficulties as other higher regions in the south.
Men tiden er ikke til romantik, og jeg har desuden heller ikke mere end tre minutter til rådighed.
That is why agriculture plays such an important role in mountain regions. I repeat, mountain areas cannot survive without farmers.
Jeg hilser det derfor så meget desto mere velkomment, som der nu er fremlagt en betænkning, som udelukkende beskæftiger sig med bjergområdernes problemer, for de er så komplekse, at de skal belyses fra alle sider.
The report concludes, among other things, that a certain population should be maintained in these regions, that the people there should stay there and that more people should be attracted into these areas.
Ordføreren har gjort et godt stykke arbejde, og det gratulerer jeg ham med. Det er jo klart, at bjergområderne af forskellige grunde aldrig må udelades.
Hence the emphasis in the report on agriculture, the environ ment, improving the transport infrastructures and the role of small industries.
Bjergområderne er økonomisk svage og særligt truede af affolkning. Folk bosætter sig ikke gerne i bjergområder, fordi de der ikke kan leve så godt som andre steder, fordi de heller ikke har den
Such a programme calls for the promotion of integrated programmes and large-scale plans aimed at developing a whole series of actions described in detail in the report.
Både før og efter at ovennævnte digt blev skrevet, er der blevet sagt og skrevet meget om bjergbefolkningens behov og ønsker.
The opinion of the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, of which I am draftsman, proposes a whole series of measures which appear in the annex to the report.