natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Jeg vil hermed på samme måde som hr. Falconer på det kraftigste gøre opmærksom på, at Parlamentet formand, hr. Klepsch, med vilje ikke tillod noget som helst indlæg til forretningsordenen, for så vidt angår hans forbløffende fortolkning af artikel 98, samt at han ikke tillod de stemmeforklaringer, som han selv havde givet tilladelse til.
The President yesterday told me your clock was regulated by the Council of Europe. Can I suggest you see to it that we all have exactly the same time so that Members who want to get into important votes can do so?
Han havde ingen som helst ret til at nægte disse.
Lord O'Hagan commented that British Labour Members were always behind the clock.
Hvad protokollen angår, vil jeg gerne anmode om, at von der Vringbetænkningen omhyggeligt kontrolleres, for så vidt angår oversættelsen til spansk af originalen.
With regard to the Minutes, Madam President, I would ask that the Spanish version of the von der Vring report be closely checked against the original.
Jeg vil gerne gøre opmærksom på følgende eksempel: ændringsforslag nr. 28, som jeg har underskrevet sammen med hr. Desama for Den Socialistiske Gruppe, og som nu svarer til nr. 17 i den nuværende orden: det eneste ord, som er ændret, er »considerables« i stedet for »significativos«, skønt der i den franske original var ændret fem ord.
I shall give one important example: in Amendment 28, which Mr Desama and myself tabled on behalf of the Socialist Group, and which now corresponds to paragraph 17 of the resolution, only the word 'significant' has been changed to 'substantial', although in the original French version five words were altered.
Før afstemningen fremførte jeg, at den spanske udgave ikke svarede til den originale ændring.
Before the vote in plenary, I pointed out that the Spanish version of this paragraph did not correspond to the original amendment.
Jeg anmoder følgelig om, at der sker en omhyggelig oversættelse af ændringsforslagene.
I would ask, therefore, that greater care be taken in the translation of amendments.
Formanden. — Dette vil blive undersøgt.
We will make the necessary corree-
Min gruppe havde gennem tyve minutter anmodet om ordet til forretningsordenen — og det helt op til næsen af formanden, som lod til at lide af udtalt sidebetonet nærsynethed!
The second point I want to make is a more serious one, though the previous one was serious enough and that is in relation to the discretion which the President used, for perhaps the first time in this Chamber, to delay the explanations of vote on the Maastricht resolution.
Han nægtede med vilje disse indlæg til forretningsordenen, og han tillod kun indlæg fra Den Socialistiske Gruppe eller fra Den Kristelig-Demokratiske Gruppe, som han naturligvis vidste havde samme synspunkt som han selv.
I think that was particularly unfortunate because this was a resolution steaming ahead on the train to European union after one of the passengers had fallen off!
Deres bemærkninger er taget til efterretning.
The impression may well have been given that the majority here was using its muscle to silence dissent.
Fru formand, vil De se på artikel 73, stk. 2, som vedrører fastsættelsen af dagsordenen
I can see why she was concerned, but as the President said, this is being referred
Cassidy og afstemningstiden? Må vi bede Dem om at udvirke, at Det Udvidede Præsidium fremover prioriterer vort lovgivningsmæssige ansvar og nedprioriterer sager, som vi kun har ringe indflydelse på?
FALCONER to make sure that the enlarged Bureau in future gives priority to our legislative responsibilities, and not so much priority to matters over which we have relatively little influence?
Men jeg tror ikke, vi kan løse problemet i form af en ny debat her til formiddag, da dette risikerer at komme til at gå ud over den aktuelle og uopsættelige debat.
PRESIDENT. — Mr Cassidy, I think this matter could usefully be raised at a Bureau meeting and the suggestion is noted.
Formanden. — Hr. Cassidy, jeg vil henvise dette spørgsmål til Præsidiet.
FALCONER (S). — I should like to develop the point made by Mr Megahy.
Dette bør tilføjes protokol len, da der ellers ikke er tale om nogen ægte protokol.
I was unhappy about his undemocratic attitude in taking away the rights of the people of this Chamber, and equally, about the way this Chamber allowed those rights to be taken away.
Fru formand, jeg er yderst bekymret over det, som skete i går, og jeg tror, at vi alle må søge at beskytte mindretallenes og medlemmernes ret til at afgive stemmeforklaring.
I am extremely concerned at what happened yesterday, as I believe that we should all defend the right of minorities and Members to explain their vote.
Må jeg ud over hr. Falconers punkt sige, at siden jeg i 1975 blev medlem af dette Parlament, har jeg aldrig været ude for, at stemmeforklaringer uden videre blev strøget.
My point to you, Madam President, is this: you are now in the chair, you are the President, can you advise me as to how this House, in the sitting, will be dealing with explanations of vote tonight?
Fru formand, der er ingen præcedens for det, som skete i går, og det bør De være opmærksom på.
Will explanations of vote be allowed before the vote is taken or will we follow the same practice as the President of Parliament adopted yesterday?
Rent logisk må stemmeforklaringer afgives inden selve afstemningen, da idéen hermed er at søge at påvirke Parlamentet til at stemme i den retning, man måtte ønske.
I seek an assurance from you now that the rights of Members will be protected.
Det har jeg tit været ude for i min lange tid her, jeg har været ude for, at en stemmeforklaring reddede dagen, fordi den fik med lemmerne til at ændre holdning.
PRESIDENT. — Mr Falconer, I allowed you to speak although that was not a point of order.
Formanden vedtog i går med støtte fra Parlamentet, at stemmeforklaringerne skulle finde sted efter afstemningen om henstillingerne til andenbehandling. Dette vedtog Parlamentet helt klart.
The President decided, with the support of the House, that the explanations of vote should be given after the votes on the recommendations for a second reading.
Da vi så nåede frem hertil, vedtoges det — igen med et flertal — at udsætte det til efter alle afstemningerne.
When the time came, however, it was decided, again by a majority, to postpone the explanations of vote until the end of voting time.
Den første afgørelse blev truffet, da man allerede havde påbegyndt stemmeforklaringerne, hvorfor der opstod en alvorlig diskrepans mellem de medlem mer, som kunne afgive stemmeforklaring, og dem, som ikke kunne det.
This decision was taken, however, after the explanations of vote had already begun, with the result that those Members who had given their explanations of vote and those who had not did not receive equal treatment.
Hvis man vedtager en sådan bestemmelse, må det ske inden stemmeforklaringerne påbegyndes.
If such a measure is to be adopted, this should take place at the beginning of the explanations of vote.
Det er en skandale, hvad der skete i går, og det er min opfattelse, at afstemningen bør erklæres ugyldig.
You will appreciate that I cannot prejudge the issue which will be decided by the president in the Chair this evening.
Men jeg formoder, at det er for meget at gøre sig håb om — men vi må huske på, at der var danske medlemmer, som var dybt involveret i dette, og at de praktisk taget sad alene tilbage i salen, mens de øvrige medlemmer ønskede at høre, hvad de havde at sige.
Nevertheless, I will raise the matter in the enlarged Bureau meeting at 4.30 p.m. and I hope that we will be able to agree on a common position for all presidents chairing a sitting.
Alt dette bør belyses nærmere, og vi bør forlange en erklæring i dag kl. 15, da vi bliver nødt til at vide, hvor vi står.
You therefore have my undertaking and will be given an answer this evening.
Det værste ved formandens afgørelse var følgende: han sagde, at han ville høre alle stemmeforklaringerne, og det var først midtvejs efter fru Jacksons punkt, at han skiftede mening.
Worse still, Madam President, is the fact that by the time voting had ended and the explanations of vote had begun — with the House then empty — it was 8.00 p.m. and the interpreters had finished work.
Parlamentets arbejde kan ikke afvikles på en sådan måde.
I greatly regret that I was unable to understand the explanation of vote given by a Danish Member as I do not speak a word of Danish.
Men det, som er endnu mere alvorligt, fru formand, er, at da vi rent faktisk havde afsluttet alle afstemningerne og allerede havde påbegyndt stemmeforklaringerne for en tom sal, var klokken blevet 20, og tolkene nedlagde arbejdet.
GOLLNISCH (DR). — (FR) Madam President, on this point, I am for once in complete agreement with Mr Falconer.
Dette medførte, at de sidste stemmeforklaringer blev afgivet kl. 20.15 — en time og et kvarter efter, at mødet skulle have været afsluttet — og uden tolkning.
I would add, however, that the Minutes record the speeches made in this House, but not the actions of those present.
Jeg beklager på det kraftigste, at jeg intet forstod af et dansk med lems stemmeforklaring, da jeg overhovedet intet kendskab har til dansk.
Madam President, if things go on like this I shall be forced to request that the rule on explanations of vote be changed to the effect that Members wishing to give an explanation of vote should do so in Place Kléber at two o'clock in the morning!
De stillede samme spørgsmål som hr. Falconer, og jeg kan naturligvis kun svare det samme.
Obviously as soon as there are 54 explnations of vote, this means the voting time will take an hour longer.
Fru formand, hvis det fortsætter på denne måde, vil jeg anmode om, at der i den artikel, som refererer til stemmeforklaringer, kommer til at stå, at de med lemmer, som ønsker at afgive stemmeforklaring, kan gøre dette kl. to om eftermiddagen på Place Kleber! ber!
For twenty minutes my group attempted to raise a point of order before the President — who seems to suffer from an acute case of lateral myopia. He resolutely refused to allow my group to raise a point of order, allowing only the Socialist and Christian-Democrat Groups to do so — in the belief, of course, that their points of order would be acceptable to him.
Men jeg vil gerne endnu en gang erindre om, at Parlamentet havde truffet en afgørelse — dette synes man at have glemt.
Neverthelees, I do not think we can settle it by holding a new debate this morning which would run the risk of cutting the time available for topical and urgent debate.
Langer (V). — (IT) Fru formand, jeg beklager, at også jeg bliver nødt til at opholde mig ved protokol len.
PRESIDENT. — The point is noted.
Under punkt 16 på side 16 vedrørende afstemningen om Jackson-betænkningen, står der helt klart, at de vedtagne ændringsforslag var nr. 1 til 4 og nr. 6 til 9 under et samt nr. 5 ved AN.
EWING (ARC). — Madam President, I think that the Minutes should be more accurate with regard to Mr Falconer's protest.
Da man var ved dette punkt, forlod formanden, hr. Klepsch, formandssædet og overlod det til hr. Estgen.
He clearly said he was protesting at the loss of what had always been regarded as a right of individual Members.
Det fremgår af protokollen, at fru Oomen-Ruijten og hr. Herman tog ordet for at gøre opmærksom på, at
I think that should be added to the Minutes, otherwise it is not a true Minute.
Formanden. — Kære kolleger, jeg vil gerne appellere til Deres gode forståelse.
CASSIDY (PPE). — Madam President, with regard to the Minutes, I must say — and here I support the point made by Mr Megahy — that it is absurd that we spent almost all of our time yesterday evening in voting on Items 14 set out in Part II of the Minutes (Texts adopted by Parliament) and therefore had to cram the legislative proposals into a very short space of time the legislative proposals.
Det er klart, at fra det øjeblik, hvor der er 54 stemmeforklaringer, vil det betyde, at afstemningstiden forlænges med en time.
Further to Mr Falconer's point, could I say that since 1975, when I joined this House, I have never known explanations of vote to be summarily cancelled.
Der er således tale om et konkret problem.
There is no precedent for what was done yesterday, Madam President, and you should be concerned about that.
Ford (S). — (EN) Fru formand, jeg vil gerne henvise til side 17 i protokollen.
FORD (S). — Madam President, I refer to page 12 of the Minutes.
For det første står der, at Ford tilsluttede sig Anastassopoulos' anmodning.
First, it says at the bottom of the first column that Mr Ford seconded Mr Anastassopoulos' proposal.
Det gjorde jeg ikke, jeg bad formanden træffe en afgørelse, hvilket er noget helt andet.
I asked the President to make a ruling on the issue, which is rather different, I have to say that the Minutes look totally absurd.
Protokollen ser helt absurd ud — den er præcis, men absurd.
They are accurate but absurd.
Den afspejler, hvad der skete i går.
They reflect what happened last night.
Der står, at ændringsforslag nr. 1 til 4 og 6 til 9 blev sat under afstemning under et, og der står så senere på samme side, at der blev foretaget elektronisk afstemning.
They record that Amendments Nos 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 were voted collectively and then record later on the same page that it was required to have an electronic check.
Hvordan kan man have elektronisk afstemning om to ud af otte ændringsforslag, som blev vedtaget under et?
How can you have an electronic check on two out of eight amendments that were adopted jointly?
Dette må indebære, at man foretager elektronisk afstemning om de øvrige seks, da de blev taget under et. Jeg ved ikke, hvorledes formanden kunne fortolke det således, at de medlemmer, som rakte hånden i vejret, stemte for seks ændringsforslag, men imod to!
It would seem to imply that we should have had an electronic check on the other six because they were voted together.
Jeg vil gerne først og fremmest have bekræftet, at hr. Anastassopoulos erklærede, at disse ændringsforslag var blevet sat under afstemning.
LANGER (V). — (IT) Madam President, I am sorry but I too have to take up some time on the Minutes.
Mødeformanden sagde helt klart og gentog, at disse ændringsforslag var blevet sat under afstemning. Jeg vil følgelig anmode om, at Det Udvidede Præsidium i dag beskæftiger sig med dette spørgsmål, da vi finder det foruroligende, at Parlamentets formands afgørelse kan drages i tvivl af den siddende formand.
In Item 16, on page 17 of the Italian version, where it deals with the vote on the Jackson report, it clearly states that the amendments adopted were: 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 collectively and 5 by roll-call vote.
Og ydermere gik den siddende formand pludselig på anmodning fra en af de større grupper ind på at gentage afstemningen.
At that point President Klepsch left the chair and Vice-President Estgen took his place.
Hvis det havde været en lille gruppe, som havde anmodet herom, er det selvfølgelig klart, at det ikke ville være sket. Det er vor opfattelse, at dette er en ganske alvorlig sag, som ikke bør skabe præcedens.
The Minutes then say that Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and Mr Herman pointed out that the EPP Group had asked for separate votes and then 'Mr Anastassopoulos asked for the vote on these amendments to be retaken as his group had been unaware, owing to the confusion in the House, that Amendments 6 to 9 were being put to the vote collectively'.
I spørgsmålet om stemmeforklaringer står der på denne side, at fru Mcintosh anmodede om, at Forretningsordensudvalget forelagde en fortolkning af dette spørgsmål. Dette forekommer mig fornuftigt.
Finally, on the issue of the explanations of vote, on that page it is recorded that Miss Mcintosh asked that the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities look at this matter.
Udvalget kan træde sammen, så hurtigt Parlamentet ønsker en fortolkning, og det er det rette organ til at træffe afgørelser vedrørende forretningsordenen — ikke Præsidiet eller Det Udvidede Præsidium. dium.
The Rules Committee can meet as urgently as Parliament wishes to give an interpretation on the matter and is the appropriate body to make decisions on the Rules, not the Bureau or the enlarged Bureau.
Formanden. — Hr. Ford, den fornødne rettelse vil blive foretaget.
PRESIDENT. — Mr Ford, the correction you ask for will be made.
Der er rent faktisk tale om et spørgsmål om fortolkning af forretningsordenen og om et problem, som vedrører tilrettelæggelsen af Parlamentets arbejde.
It seems to me that there is essentially a problem in interpreting the Rules of Procedure. We are aware that this is a problem which affects the organization of Parliament's work.
Det Udvidede Præsidium bør beskæftige sig med denne sag, således at vi kan nå frem til en praktisk løsning på noget, som vil kunne ske igen i aften.
I think the enlarged Bureau should consider the issue to come up with a practical solution to a problem which may well arise this evening.
Maher (LDR). — (EN) Fru formand, i spørgsmålet om stemmeforklaringerne vil jeg gerne henvendt til hr. Ford og andre sige, at det ikke rigtigt tjener noget formål, at Forretningsordensudvalget træder sammen for at drøfte denne sag, så længe vi ikke ser alvorligt på det mere grundlæggende spørgsmål om den tid, vi afsætter til plenarmøderne, antallet af plenarmøder og Europa-Parlamentets arbejdssted.
I should like it to be confirmed, first of all, that Mr Anastassopoulos said that these amendments had been put to the vote. The President in the chair stated repeated ly that these amendments had been put to the vote.
En stor del af stemmeforklaringerne er et resultat af, at medlemmerne nægtes taletid.
I would therefore ask that the Enlarged Bureau look into this matter at its meeting today.
Medlemmerne har ikke taletid nok under forhandlingerne, hvorfor de anmoder om at måtte afgive en stemmeforklaring.
We feel it is quite worrying that a ruling given by the President can be overturned by the acting President — all the more so because the incoming Vice-President suddenly agreed, at the request of one of the larger groups, to retake the vote.
Og så længe vi ikke har udvidet plenarmøderne og givet medlemmerne tilstrækkelig taletid, vil vi fortsat have dette poroblem.
If a smaller group had asked, we would obviously not have had the same response.
Vi ignorerer de grundlæggende forhold.
We believe this is a very serious precedent and we must on no account allow it to set a trend.
van Putten (S). — (NL) Fru formand, jeg vil vende tilbage til det spørgsmål, jeg omtalte i tirsdags.
DURY (S). — (FR) Madam President, the record of the vote on the von der Vring report indicates that I voted against.
Der er sket følgende.
I should like to point out that it was my intention to vote in favour.
For det første synes jeg, at det er beklageligt, at vi ikke har en ordning, der gør det muligt, at beslutninger ligesom ændringsforslag kan overtages af andre grupper.
A high proportion of the explanations of vote are really the result of Members being denied speaking time.
For det andet vil jeg spørge Dem, hvornår denne erklæring vil blive afgivet.
The Members do not have enough time to speak in the debate so they ask for an explanation of vote.
Forsamlingen eller i hvert fald en stor del af forsamlingen er enig i, at Parlamentet i denne uge skal udsende noget om, hvad der sker i Rio både med hensyn til gadebørnene og med hensyn til UNCED.
And until we van PUTTEN (S). — (NL) Madam President, I wish to come back to the point I raised at Tuesday's sitting.
Altså, hvornår får vi denne erklæring?
What has happened is as follows.
Formanden. — Fru van Putten, denne erklæring vil blive afgivet inden kl. 12.
On Monday, a resolution was tabled in good time on behalf of the Socialist Group on
Hr. Ford har ganske ret: protokollen er i sin nuværende udformning ret så absurd.
MAHER extend the plenary and give sufficient time to Members, we will still have this problem.
Der står, at vi foretog afstemning to gange.
We are ignoring the fundamentals.
Colom i Naval (S). — (ES) Fru formand, undskyld at jeg vender tilbage til nøjagtig samme betænkning, som jeg før henviste til, nemlig til von der Vringbetænkningen om Delors Ilpakken.
the vote are recorded, is quite correct, this is not the case as regards the text adopted by Parliament.
Jeg kom før ind på oversættelsesfejl.
Certain sec tions of text which were adopted do not appear in the Minutes.
Især det tidligere punkt 40, som nu er blevet punkt 41 i den nye orden, indeholdt tre led: a), b) og c). Der var et ændrings forslag nr. 25 til punkt 40 a), som vedtoges af plenum.
In particular, what was originally paragraph 40, and has now become paragraph 41, contained three indents: (a), (b) and (c).
Kun dette led ændredes — de øvrige led, b) og c), undergik ingen ændring — men i det nye punkt 41 findes kun det, som før var punkt 40 a).
This indent was amended, but indents (b) and (c) were not. The new paragraph 41, however, consists only of the former paragraph 40(a) as amended.
Der er tale om en meget alvorlig sag, da der hverken mere elller mindre er tale om et så ømtåleligt spørgsmål som opkrævningen af en EF-skat.
This is an extremely serious error, as the paragraph deals with nothing less than the sensitive issue of the introduction of a Community tax.
Formanden. — Hr. Colom i Naval, teksten vil blive kontrolleret, så den bliver i overenstemmelse med det vedtagne.
PRESIDENT. — Mr Colom I Naval, the text will be revised in conformity with the way we voted.
Ford (S). — (EN) Fru formand, jeg går imod hr. Pattersons fortolkning. Jeg vil foreslå, at hvis han vil fortolke det, må han først lytte til båndoptagelsen.
PATTERSON (PPE). — Madam President, like Mr Langer I want to raise the matter of the voting on the Jackson report. Mr Ford is quite right.
Den engelske tolkning, jeg lyttede til, sagde helt klart, at vi skulle stemme om ændringsforslag nr. 1 til 4 og 6 til 9 under et. Jeg ønsker ikke Parlamentets procedurer ændret, fordi det er belejligt for Parlamentet.
The Minutes should reflect what the rapporteur, Mrs Jackson, said, namely that she the rapporteur was under the impression — this is item 16 — that Amendments Nos 1 to 4 had been adopted collectively but not Amendments Nos 6 to 9.
Lad os høre båndet. Jeg går imod denne fortolkning, der var tale om en påskud for at søge af finde en udvej for formanden, så han kunne foretage endnu en afstemning, men det var ikke det, som rent faktisk fandt sted.
There was a dispute about what had actually occurred and the Minutes should reflect that Amendments Nos 1 to 4 were adopted collectively under the presidency of President Klepsch but it was not clear that Amendments Nos 6 to 9 had been adopted.
Jeg vil gerne vide, om De accep terer denne ændring af protokollen, for der vil ikke være tale om nogen præcis ændring.
That was in dispute and as the opinion of the rapporteur it should be reflected in the Minutes.
McMillan-Scott (PPE). — (EN) Fru formand, hvis man læser protokollen, vil man se, at min kollega, fru Mcintosh, anmodede om, at Forretningsordens udvalget fortolkede en særlig bestemmelse i forretningsordenen, og at formanden gik ind herpå.
McMILLAN-SCOTT (ED). — Madam President, those who read the Minutes will see that my colleague, Miss Mcintosh, asked that the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities give an interpretation of a particular provision of the Rules and that the President accepted it.
Det er følgelig her, at dette spørgsmål nu bør drøftes.
Therefore, that is now the forum in which this matter should be discussed.
Formanden. — Hr. Patterson, båndet vil blive hørt, så vi kan se, om det er påkrævet med en ændring af protokollen, så den bliver i overensstemmelse med det, som rent faktisk skete, og med det, som blev sagt.
PRESIDENT. — Mr McMillan Scott, I have already confirmed that the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities will be dealing with this question.
Formanden. — Hr. McMillan-Scott, jeg tror, jeg allerede har svaret på dette punkt, idet jeg bekræftede, at Udvalget for Forreningsordenen, Valgs Prøvelse og Medlemmernes Immunitet snart vil befatte sig med dette spørgsmål.
If there are no other comments, can I take it that the Minutes are approved subject of course to the corrections which have been proposed.