natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ford (S). — (EN) Hr. formand, efter hr. Cassidys nyttige indlæg tidligere er jeg ikke meget for at være enig med Den Europæiske Demokratiske Gruppe om noget, men jeg må sige, at jeg virkelig er enig med hr. Prag i, at Præsidiet ikke har fulgt Prag betænkningen i denne sag.
FORD (S). — Mr President, after Mr Cassidy's helpful speech earlier, I am loath to agree with the European Democrats on anything, but I have to say that I do agree with Mr Prag that the Bureau has not followed the Prag report in this matter.
Vi ved alle, hvad der sker.
We all know what is happening.
Der er nogle medlemmer, der ikke ønsker at se Pragbetænkningen ført ud i livet, der vil starte en marathondebat.
There is a filibuster going on from some people who do not want the Prag report implemented.
Hvis man ønsker at ændre Parlamentets beslutninger, har Parlamentet ret til det.
If you want to change the decisions of this Parliament, Parliament has a right to do so.
Det er et nyt parlament.
It is a new Parliament.
Vi behøver derfor en afstemning.
We therefore need a vote.
Jeg mener, at det er af afgørende betydning, at vi faktisk får denne afstemning i denne uge.
I think it is vital that we actually have a vote this week.
Når vi får en afstemning, hr. formand, må vi huske på artikel 69, stk. 1, der siger, at ethvert medlem kan stille ændringsforslag, og artikel 91, stk. 1, der siger, at ethvert medlem kan anmode om særskilt afstemning om en forelagt tekst.
In having a vote, Mr President, we need to bear in mind Rule 69(1) which says any Member can table amendments, and Rule (91)(1), which says that any Member may ask for a split vote on a text that is put down.
Det er måden at løse dette problem på, så at Parlamentet ikke fortsætter sine endeløse sigøjneragtige vandringer rundt i Europa, når vi faktisk kunne mødes ét sted og i virkeligheden gøre denne institutions arbejde langt bedre.
That is the way to resolve this problem so that Parliament does not continue its endless, gipsy-like peregrinations around Europe, affecting our political and economic wellbeing, when in fact we could meet in one place and do the work of this institution far better.
Pragbetænkningen indeholdt tydelige forslag med henblik herpå.
Therefore, Mr President, I am just saying that this is a serious question.
I øjeblikket er der uenig hed om fortolkningen af denne betænkning.
You know that if I am to give an opinion on what you have said, in other words on your statement, I need as a Member to have documents.
Altså er der nu to muligheder: Enten ændrer vi Præsidiets afgørelse eller også har vi en afstemning under forhandlingen om uopsættelige spørgsmål. Jeg går ind for denne sidstnævnte mulighed.
I think that if there is any such thing as an iniquitous file, it's precisely the property file which lies behind this saga of Brussels and Strasbourg, with French capital and the goodwill of the French Government, which is allowing Parliament at this moment to build its seat in Brussels for the profit of the property market in breach of the Treaties.
Jeg vil således foreslå Dem formelt at sætte hr. Peters' forslag under afstemning, således at vi i Parlamentet suverænt kan træffe beslutning om dennes sag.
Howevet, in this fool's bargain, once again, it is democracy, honesty and the regulations which will pay for it.
Her er en skrigende mangel på information, og det bekymrer mig især.
It has, in fact, been distributed.
David Martin (S). — (EN) Hr. formand, flere har sagt, at Præsidiets beslutning var enstemmig.
GALLAND (LDR). — (FR) Mr President, I would just like to calmly make one or two observations.
Jeg førte forsædet her, under Parlamentets møde, mens Præsidiet holdt møde, og var ikke i stand til at deltage i præsidiemødet.
Firstly to acknowledge formally to Mr Peters that the Bureau has worked on the basis of the Prag report and that the Bureau feels that it has respected the Prag report.
Jeg vil også gerne støtte de kolleger, der har bedt om, at der stemmes om denne sag her i forsamlingen.
Mr Prag himself has said that this report was a compromise report.
Jeg mener, det er afgørende, at vi gør det.
It is the Bureau's task to implement
Pimenta (LDR). — (PT) Hr. formand, jeg tilslutter mig hr. Prag, både hvad angår indhold og form.
MARTIN, David (S). — Mr President, a number of people have mentioned that the Bureau decision was unanimous.
Med hensyn til sidstnævnte gav plenarforsamlingen ganske vist et mandat til Det Udvidede Præsidium.
I was in the Chair during the Parliament sitting at the time the Bureau met and was unable to attend that Buteau meeting.
Den, der giver et mandat, kan altid trække det tilbage, hvis den institution, der har fået mandatet overdraget, ikke følger de i mandatet fastsatte ret
Had I been at the Bureau meeting I would have voted against the recommend ation, which I think is against the spirit of the Prag report.
Pannella (NI). — (FR) Rogalla, undertiden er du det fuldkomne medlem fra trediverne. Som I var det, ikke vi.
I also wish to support colleagues who have asked for this matter to be voted on in the House.
Jeg har bedt om ordet til forretningsordenen...
GALLAND it and, in order to do this, it must make clarifications on the compromises.
Præsidiet har for sin del den opgave at gennemføre den, og for at kunne gennemføre den skal det søge kompromiset klarlagt.
The Bureau's decision was taken according to Rule 22, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Når man tager parlamenterne fra Dem, fortjener De, at man gør det.
Woe betide a Parliament which does not abide by its own Rules of Procedure.
Den anden ting, hr. formand, er, at De faktisk har ret, og jeg støtter Dem.
LANGES (PPE). — (DE) Mr President, I do not understand what is going on.
Præsidiets afgørelse er taget på grundlag af artikel 22, stk. 2, i forretningsordenen.
On the one hand Mr Peters maintains that, with the exception of Mr Martin, all the Bureau voted for this compromise.
Det tredje, hr. formand, er, at jeg tror, at Deres forslag er et klogt forslag, at vi bør holde os til det.
Thirdly, Mr President, I think that your proposal is a wise proposal and that we should confine ourselves to it.
Endelig vil jeg vende mig mod hr. Martin og sige til ham: Kære kollega, hvis man gør, som De siger — jeg gengiver ordret Deres forslag — og Parlamentet stemmer om Parlamentets hjemsted, så gør man det i modstrid med Traktaterne, man gør det i modstrid med Domstolens kendelser, og jeg tror ikke, det vil være til fordel for den ret til lovgivningsinitiativ, som vi kræver for Parlamentet, for vor troværdighed vil ikke vinde ved det.
Finally, I should like to say to my colleague, Mr Martin: my dear colleague, if we do what you say and if our Parliament votes — I quote your proposal word for word — in order to take a decision on the seat of the Parliament, it would do so in breach of the Treaties, in breach of the decisions of the Court of Justice and I do not think that that would assist us in our requests for Parliament to have the power to initiate legislation, because we will not gain any credibility.
Lad os derfor respektere Traktaterne, lad os respektere vor forretningsorden. den.
So, let us abide by the Treaties, let us abide by our Rules of Procedure.
For det er jo sådan, Rogalla og I andre, at I morer jer, når en kollega beder om ordet til forretningsordenen, og den såkaldte formand for Parlamentet morer sig med ikke at give ordet til et medlem, når han har ret til det.
Withdraw your suggestion, reconsider the matter in the Bureau, so that we have a clear decision that can be supported by us all, a decision that will also obtain a majority in the Committee on Budgets.
Estgen (PPE). — (FR) Hr. formand, jeg forstår ikke rigtig, hvad dette her betyder.
ESTGEN (PPE). — (FR) Mr President, I don't really understand what this means.
Er vi allerede i gang med den debat, Den Socialistiske Gruppe bad om?
Have we already started the debate which the Socialist Group was asking for?
De har givet forsamlingen en meddelelse.
You have made a statement to the Assembly.
Og jeg tror, at hvis der er enighed om noget her i salen, så er det, at Præsidiet ikke bare har ret til at tilrettelægge og forbedre Parlamentets arbejdsforhold, men at det endda har pligt, forpligtelse til det. Det er klart.
However, I think that if we are agreed on one thing within these walls, it's on the fact that the Bureau not only has the right to organize and improve this Parliament's working conditions, but even has the obligation, the duty to do so.
Så kan man sige: Vel, hvis De gør det under udøvelsen af Deres pligt, hvorfor beder De så om Parlamentets mening?
If you say to us, well we are doing that in order to carry out this obligation, why then are you asking for the opinion of the Assembly?
Hvis De alligevel beder om den, er det så ikke, fordi De har en fornemmelse af, at De i denne sag har overskredet Præsidiets kompetence?
If you are asking for it, isn't it because you feel that you have exceeded the competence of the Bureau in this matter ?
Vi har hørt fra forskel lige pladser her i Parlamentet, at det er et alvorligt spørgsmål, der gemmer sig bag denne meddelelse fra Præsidiet.
From different benches here in this Assembly, we have heard that there is a serious question concealed behind this statement from the Bureau.
Jeg vil derfor ganske simpelt sige, hr. formand, at spørgsmålet er alvorligt. De ved, at hvis jeg skal kunne udtale mig om det, De fortæller os, nemlig om Deres meddelelse, så har jeg som medlem brug for dokumenter.
I beg you not to comply with the Socialist Group's request.
Jeg vil kunne sige til Dem, om De har handlet rigtigt, i det øjeblik De giver mig — hvad jeg som parlamentsmedlem har ret til — alle de dokumenter, på grundlag af hvilke Præsidiet har truffet sin afgørelse.
Do not allow Parliament to vote either, because I must say with regard to the Prag report, the Luxembourg Members would not be able to accept it, since there is one Member State, Luxembourg, which has appealed against the Prag report.
Når der er nogle, der ønsker afstemning, forstår jeg det ikke, for så vil vi stemme uden at have studeret bilagene. Jeg tror, at hvis der er en sjofel dokumentsamling, så er det netop de ejendomsdokumenter, der ligger bag denne historie om Bruxelles og Strasbourg, med den franske kapital og den franske regerings medvirken, der gør det muligt, at Parlament i modstrid med Traktaterne i dette øjeblik er i gang med til glæde for ejendomsmarkedet at bygge sig hjemsted i Bruxelles.
Therefore, it is not enforceable in law for the Luxembourg people.
Men på bedragernes marked er det endnu en gang demokratiet, hæderligheden og reglerne, der betaler.
That is why, as far as the Luxembourg Members are concerned, we could not vote on anything at all with regard to the Prag report.
Formanden. — Hr. Pannella, jeg sagde, at dokumentet ville blive omdelt i dag efter min meddelelse.
CATHERWOOD, Sir Fred (ED). — Mr President, I would like to support Mr de Vries's proposal.
Faktisk er det allerede omdelt.
I think constitutionally we are in some difficulties in that the Bureau makes decisions according to the Rules.
Galland (LDR). — (FR) Hr. formand, ganske lidenskabsløst vil jeg blot komme med et par bemærknin
I think, however, that it would be difficult if we simply voted on a Bureau resolution.
Jeg beder Dem om ikke at efterkomme Den Socialistiske Gruppes anmodning.
I do not think Parliament has ever voted on a Bureau resolution.
Tillad ikke en debat, for den risikerer at anfægte spørgsmålet om Parlamentets hjemsted, hvor vi ingen kompetence har, og skade Parlamentets pæne image, hvis det ikke vil respektere Traktaterne og Domstolens kendelser.
I think it is much more in the dignity of both Parliament and the Bureau and their respective functions if we do what Mr de Vries has suggested, i.e., if we put down an urgency resolution, then that will be Parliament's own resolution put down in Parliament's terms with Parliament's recitals and it puts a view that Parliament wants to put and not in the terms in which the Bureau has put it.
Tillad heller ikke en afstemning i Parlamentet, for jeg må sige til Dem, at gennemførelsen af Prag betænkningen vil de luxembourgske medlemmer ikke kunne tilslutte sig, idet der jo er en medlems stat, Luxembourg, der har gjort indsigelse imod Pragbetænkningen.
I would very much support that and suggest to my Socialist friends that they might support the idea that what we do is not get into a legal tangle as to whether we can or cannot vote on a Bureau decision but that we put down our own resolution in an urgency and vote on that.
Derfor har den ikke retsgyldighed for luxembourgerne.
Then I think dignity will be satisfied all round.
Og derfor vil man ikke fra
We will have done what we want to do.
På den ene side siger hr. Paters, at med undtagelse af hr. Martin har Præsidiet tilsluttet sig dette kompromis.
Under Rule 22(2), this compromise decision is the responsibility of the Bureau.
Vel, men nu er der nogle, der siger: Det er jo ikke i fortsættelse af Pragbetænkningen, den er ikke omsat, Præsidiet har frigjort sig fra den.
In view of the fact that the Bureau has tried to find a genuine compromise after hours of discussion, I feel that Patliament should accept this decision as it is.
nemlig fremsætter en uopsættelig beslutning, for så vil det være Parlamentets egen beslutning, fremsat med Parlamentets ordvalg og Parlamentets betragtninger, og den udtrykker den opfattelse, Parlamentet ønsker at udtrykke, og ikke i det ordvalg Præsidiet har givet det.
How can anybody in their senses say that what is being proposed by the Bureau has nothing to do with the seat of Parliament, when in fact we have one hémicycle being erected at the moment and provision for a new one here in Strasbourg ?
Jeg støtter dette meget og vil foreslå mine socialistiske venner, at de støtter tanken om, at det, vi skal gøre, er ikke at komme ind i retlige forviklinger om, hvorvidt vi kan eller ikke kan stemme om en præsidieafgørelse, men at det, vi forelægger, er vor egen beslutning til uopsættelig forhandling, og at vi stemmer om den.
Yet it is claimed that the rules bind us to such a degree that this Parliament of over 500 Members cannot be given a complete, clear outline of what the decisions really mean and what it is that we are deciding.
Så tror jeg, værdigheden vil være respekteret hele vejen rundt.
We are going along in the dark, blindfolded and with decisions that clearly imply two hémicycles being erected at the same time in two different centres.
Vi vil have fået Præsidiets afgørelse forelagt og i plenum have et langt bredere syn på den. Hvis vi har dette bredere syn fra plenum, kan vi gå videre med alle bag den.
It is far too important, far too complicated, for all of us in the midst of all our other work this week to come to a clear decision.
Telkämper (V). — (DE) Hr. formand, jeg mener, at De har handlet rigtigt i overensstemmelse med for retningsordenen.
During the debate it became obvious that various different matters were being confused : on the one hand your decision and on the other the question of the seat.
Ifølge artikel 22, stk. 2, hører dette kompromisforslag til blandt Præsidiets rettigheder.
Your decision, taken under Rule 22 (2), does not involve the question of the seat.
Hvis plenum vil ændre forretningsordenen, vil det krænke hidtidig forretningsordenspraksis.
There is urgent need for a debate on the Quaestors' report and on the attitude of the Committee on Budgets.
Derfor mener jeg — så meget mere som vi i Præsidiets har bestræbt os på efter timelange debatter at finde et ægte kompromis — at plenarforsamlingen bør acceptere denne afgørelse som sådan.
However, these are two different matters. Particularly in view of the fact that there are so many political changes going on in Eastern Europe, that Strasbourg is close to the border in an area where a European Region could be created, along the lines of the District of Columbia in the USA, where borders could be abolished and ttoops withdrawn, it would be of value to discuss how we should democratically structure the capital of Europe, how it could be de-nuclearized, demilitarized and made ecologically sound — but this is quite a different subject and now is not the time to discuss it.
Dem har Pragbetænkningen som bekendt ikke fundet. Hvad skal vi så gøre?
As Parliamentarians we should respect our own Rules of Procedure.
Taler vi nu om et kompromis fra Præsidiet? Skal vi drøfte det?
You have presented the Bureau compromise decision as being unanimous.
Så forstår jeg da slet ikke socialisternes forslag! Skal vi nu ændre dette kompromis linje for linje og stemme om det linje for linje?
I think that Mr Peters has been trying to turn everything topsy-turvy and that you should put things back the right way up !
Bliver det så et kompromis?
Any debate can take place later, possibly as part of a debate on urgent and topical matters.
Det kan da slet ikke fungere! Så får vi måske en flertalsopfattelse, men bestemt ikke en flertalsopfattelse, der kan få 260 stemmer under budgetbehandlingen.
What we notice, therefore, is that the compromise which has been adopted in the Bureau following lengthy discussions actually abides by the framework of the Treaties, in other words, there are three places of work.
Hvis Den Socialistiske Gruppe fastholder, at der skal stemmes, og at der desuden skal kunne stilles ændringsforslag, som der over i købet skal stemmes om enkeltvis, så var rær at glemme begrebet »kompromis«. Det er umuligt, og jeg kan kun advare imod det.
BLANEY (ARC). — Mr President, while the report that has come forward is probably the best the Bureau could come up with in its wisdom, and while the previous report on which this largely was based also no doubt involved a lot of thought, I cannot but be sttuck by the implications of this report.
Sir Fred Catherwood (ED). — (EN) Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne støtte hr. de Vries' forslag.
There are those who will say that we are not deciding on the seat of Parliament.
På den anden side er det helt klart, at De traf beslutning, og Præsidiet vidste, at De ville træffe denne beslutning, om at underrette plenarforsamlingen.
There are those who would say that any decision in that regard that did not respect the provisions of the Treaty cannot really be considered.
Jeg mener, at det i langt højere grad i samklang med både Parlamentets og Præsidiets værdighed og deres respektive funktioner, hvis vi gør det, hr. de Vries har foreslået,
Are we not all aware that there is, according to common gossip in Brussels outside the offices that we now occupy a major construction under way which is said to be the new hémicycle in Brussels?
Vi parlamentsmedlemmer skal respektere den forret ningsorden, vi selv har givet os. De har forelagt Præsidiets afgørelse som en enstemmig kompromis-
Not to be outdone, and pethaps to keep up in the race, we found here during the last partsession a very nice display, well set out and explained by a lady who was present, as to the proposed extensions across the river of the premises that we now occupy.
Jeg mener, hr. Peters har forsøgt en håndstand. Stil forholdene på fødderne igen!
TRAUTMANN is to be able to work in better conditions.
Vi respekterer denne afgørelse.
That is what this compromise makes possible.
Debatten finder sted senere, eventuelt i form af en uopsættelig debat.
We therefore totally agree with what you have said, Mr President.
Blaney (ARC). — (EN) Hr. formand, selv om den meddelelse, der er blevet givet, formentlig er det bedste, Præsidiet kunne komme med i sin visdom, og selv om den tidligere betænkning, som den i stor udstrækning var baseret på, utvivlsomt også har været genstand for mange tanker, bliver jeg alligevel slået af, hvad denne afgørelse indebærer.
SPERONI (ARC). — (IT) Mr President, there has been talk of operating under optimal conditions, but these simply do not appear to me to exist at present.
Jeg mener ikke, at Parlamentet indirekte, om jeg så må sige, kan træffe beslutning i et så alvorligt spørgsmål, eller at denne debat kan finde sted her i dette øjeblik, hvis man vil respektere forsamlingens forretningsorden.
So the bottom line is that I am talking about a report which I do not have, and which was never given to me, although it would have been appropriate to send it at the same time as that message.
Der er dem, der vil sige, at vi ikke træffer beslutning om Parlamentets hjemsted.
It is clear to many people in this Parliament that the Bureau has, in at least two tespects, exceeded those delegated powers.
Der er dem, der vil sige, at enhver beslutning herom, der ikke respekterer Traktatens bestemmelser, faktisk ikke kan behandles. Men hvad gør vi?
Therefore, it is in the first instance your duty to look at the Bureau's decision and make up your mind whether it falls within or outside the Prag report.
Er vi ikke alle klar over, at det er en almindelig hemmelighed i Bruxelles, at ved siden af de kontorer, vi nu bruger, er man i gang med et større byggeri, der siges at blive til den nye mødesal i Bruxelles?
I am very pleased to hear therefore that you are going to ask the Bureau to look again at this matter.
Disse to spørgsmål er og bliver en helhed, men i øjeblikket er det, som samtlige medlemmer ønsker, at kunne arbejde under de bedste forhold.
I also feel compelled to highlight another point relating to democracy in this Parliament.
Det er det, som dette kompromis gør muligt.
I belong to a group which is not represented in the Bureau so I am in favour of debating this in the chamber.
Vi er ganske af den mening, som De har givet udtryk for, hr. for mand.
That is the only way my group's views can be represented in and not excluded from a decision as important as the seat of Parliament.
Alligevel påstår man, at forretningsordenen binder os i en sådan grad, at Parlamentet her med over 500 medlemmer ikke kan få et komplet og klart overblik over, hvad beslutningerne i virkeligheden betyder, og hvad det er, man beslutter.
Second, everyone has a right to altet their point of view and I note that you have entirely changed yout opinion in relation to what you were saying this morning.
Vi går frem i mørke med bind for øjnene og med beslut ninger, der klart indebærer, at der bygges to møde sale på samme tid i to forskellige centre. I fornuftens interesse vil jeg bede om, at vi får en ordentlig dokumentation, at Parlamentet får en mulighed for at overveje og studere dette spørgsmål, som Sir Fred Catherwood allerede har sagt, men ikke i denne uge.
I absolutely do not accept that I or the Bureau has gone beyond our remit as to the agreement adopted and the resolution on the Prag report of 18 January 1989.
Uanset hvordan vi kan liste uden om det, ser jeg dette klart i Præsidiets meddelelse.
However, if we really must reach a decision in this debate, after a vote, I ask that we should have the opportunity to table amendments, and to debate them and vote on them.
Speroni (ARC). — (IT) Hr. formand, der er blevet talt om at få bedre arbejdsforhold; det forekommer det mig absolut ikke, vi har i øjeblikket.
PRESIDENT. — The next item is the Commission statement on subsidies to the automobile industry in the United Kingdom.
Jeg har først nu i eftermiddag modtaget Deres meddelelse, hvor der henvises til en Prag-betænkning, der er blevet vedtaget, medens jeg endnu ikke var medlem af Parlamentet. Jeg har forsøgt at fremskaffe denne for at være behørigt dokumenteret, men vedkommende tjeneste i Parlamentet har ikke været i stand til at skaffe mig det dokument, jeg havde anmodet om.
PRESIDENT. — Ladies and gentlemen, the Chait has acted in accordance with the compromise it agreed, by directly notifying the plenary, for the first time in the history of this Patliament, of a Bureau decision in this connection.
Vi er derfor ved den grænse, hvor jeg skal tale om en betænkning, som jeg ikke er i besiddelse af, som ikke er blevet givet mig, medens det dog ville have været hensigtsmæssigt at omdele den sammen med meddelelsen til medlemmerne.
BRITTAN, Sir Leon, Vice-President of the Commission. — Mr President, I would like to put this matter in the context of State assistance to the motor industry generally, an industry which is of course of major industtial and employment importance to the Com munity, but of vital impact on a whole range of other industries and services.