natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Befolkningerne har også været skeptiske over for de mulige miljø, sundheds- og sikkerhedsmæssige aspekter af sagen.
Twenty-four hours before the Cannes Summit in June, the leaders of 21 socialist, social democrat and labour parties — including 7 European Union prime ministers — signed a declaration opposing the resumption of testing.
Det er også mit håb, at det vil lykkes for verdenssamfundet til næste år at nå frem til en aftale om et endeligt stop for alle testsprængninger i fremtiden.
It does not matter to us that the news today is that President Chirac will only carry out a further four tests, rather than six.
Jeg håber, at verden snart har set sin sidste sprængning af et nukleart våben.
Thank you, Mr Chirac, that wili be four too many, because we do not want any!
Alle her i Parlamentet ved, at Kommissionen Ja hele Unionen, har begrænsede beføjelser.
But what of the information received and the decision taken by the Commission?
Green (PSE). — (EN) Hr. formand, først vil jeg gerne udtrykke tilfredshed med Kommissionens klare ønske om at afgive denne erklæring i dag over for Europa-Parlamentet.
Finally, Mr Santer, you may feel today that you have finally laid this issue to rest.
Vi deler denne skamfølelse, for vi har heller ikke været i stand til at hindre en af vore partnere i Den Europæiske Union i at handle med et sådant hovmod og en sådan respektløshed.
How can the testing of a weapon, designed to inflict death, damage and destruction on a mass scale, be anything other than a particularly dangerous test?
Jeg vil gerne takke Kommissionens formand for hans redegørelse til os i dag.
Secondly, there is no room in this House for double standards on this issue.
Jeg takker ham, selv om vi i Parlamentet i dag har fået at vide, at vi skulle have haft den i juli.
We will continue to express the clear majority view of the peoples of the European Union: no to nuclear testing!
Hr. formand, kære kolleger, fru Green har netop sagt: Tror vi på det?
Martens (PPE). — (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during our debate on 11 October, I asked exactly what the European Commission's responsibilities are in relation to France's nuclear tests.
Jeg siger på vor gruppes vegne: Vi råder i dag ikke over elementer og oplysninger, der kan drage Kommissionens konklusioner i tvivl.
Pasty (UPE). — (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission had to answer the following question: does the Euratom Treaty, and in particular Article 34, apply to the French nuclear tests?
De har desuden brudt med Deres forgængeres årelange periode med passivitet, inklusive Deres direkte forgængere.
And, as a function of the answer to that question, what conclusions does the Commission draw from the data supplied by the French authorities, either directly or following the mission of the experts who were sent to the site?
De har med rette understreget, at overordentlig stor omhu og professionalisme er påkrævet i denne sag.
I note with satisfaction that the Commission kept strictly to those issues and thus it has acted in a responsible manner.
Jeg vender tilbage til det, jeg sagde her i Parlamentet i juli og september på Den Socialdemokratiske Gruppes vegne: vores kriterier er ikke, hvorvidt disse forsøg er sikre eller ej, vi mener, at disse forsøg er uønskede og unødvendige.
The Euratom Treaty is very clear. The Commission rightly says that Article 34 requires it to carry out checks and to give its opinion or assent in the case of particularly dangerous experiments.
Vi er principielt modstandere af dem.
It must also do this with military testing.
Fireogtyve timer forud for Cannes-topmødet i juni underskrev lederne af 21 socialistiske, socialdemokratiske og labourpartier — herunder 7 regeringschefer fra Den Europæiske Union — en erklæring imod genoptagelsen af prøvesprængningerne.
During the debate, we gathered from what the Commission President said that the French Government had, up to that point, given the Commission only limited information and had not answered all its questions.
For vores side af Parlamentet er sagen klar og utvetydig: forsøgene er en fejl!
I asked him to determine exactly what information was still required, and to press the French Government to deliver it as soon as possible.
Det betyder intet for os, at vi i dag kan høre, at præsident Chirac kun vil gennemføre yderligere fire forsøg i stedet for seks.
It would thus quickly become clear whether the Commission was to receive the information it needed and what conclusions it should draw.
Hr. formand, kære kolleger, genoptagelsen af de franske atomforsøg har udviklet en ny bevidsthed i verdensopinionen.
The first question is in fact a source of legal controversy.
Et stort flertal her i Parlamentet, og vi udgør en del deraf, er imod atomforsøg.
Does the Euratom Treaty apply to military nuclear applications or not?
Desuden har episoden ført til, at vejen på ny åbnes til forhandlinger med henblik på at nå frem til atomnedrustning.
I am amongst those who believe the answer must be in the negative — but I am not the only one in this hémicycle, because in the last part-session we heard a brilliant demonstration of this position from our colleague Jean-Pierre Cot.
Jeg vil således endnu en gang bekræfte vor holdning her.
In fact, an international treaty which creates obligations or rights for sovereign states, can only be interpreted narrowly.
Vi bekræfter på ny, at vi var og stadig er imod atomforsøg.
Where there is doubt, national sovereignty takes precedence.
Vi beklager den franske beslutning om at foretage nye atomforsøg uden forudgående høring af de europæiske partnere.
Now, not a single provision of the treaty in question makes explicit reference to the military aspects of atomic energy.
Vi noterer os den kendsgerning, at den franske præsident i går over for en international tv-station erklærede, at disse atomforsøg vil blive begrænset til fire.
On the contrary, all the terms used in Article 34, including the term 'experiment', relate to civilian applications and not military applications.
Vi forventer af de andre atommagter, at de vil opretholde moratoriet.
You gave us your final decision yesterday, Mr Santer, which you said was shared by all the members of the Commission and had been taken on legal and scientific grounds.
Vi regner med, at forhandlinger om traktaten om et fuldstændigt forbud mod atomprøvesprængninger vil føre til en nulløsning i 1996, og vi konstaterer med glæde, at præsident Clinton og præsident Jeltsin i går, hvis vi kan tro på pressen, indgik en aftale derom.
It now seems that Article 34 does not have to be applied, and that the measures which the French Government is taking are currently adequate to protect the health of the population and the workers involved.
Alt dette vil, som jeg sagde, kunne åbne vejen for koordinerede forhandlinger om atomnedrustning.
As a precaution, you are also looking at the possible long-term effects, and you are urging the French Government to accept the need for long-term monitoring of radioactivity in the test zone, and to agree to inform the Commission of the results.
Endelig føler De, hr. Santer, måske, at De i dag endelig har stedt denne sag til hvile.
On behalf of my group, I would say that we do not have any information or basis today to challenge the Commission's conclusions.
Men jeg ved fra Deres erklæring, at De er klar over, at Europas folkevalgte stemme ikke er indstillet på at vaske sine hænder rene for dette europæiske ansvar.
What is more, you have finally put an end to the years of passivity displayed by your predecessors, including those who immediately preceded you.
For det første vil vi fortsat udforske alle veje for om muligt at forhindre yderligere forsøg.
You have rightly stressed that this whole issue calls for an extremely cautious and professional approach.
Vi fordømmer det faktum, at den franske regering skulle tvinges til at informere og samarbejde, lige som når man trækker dårlige tænder ud.
This sense of perversion of procedure could well be reinforced by the fact that we waited until the 193rd test in order to raise the question of the application of the Euratom Treaty.
For det andet er det ikke plads til dobbelte standarder i denne sag her i Parlamentet.
That point brings me to the following question.
Vi vil fortsat udtrykke en klar flertalsholdning, der afspejler Den Europæiske Unions borgeres synspunkt: nej til atomforsøg!
Who can fail to be amazed at the comparison between all the energy expended by the European Commissioner for the Environment and by our Parliament on this affair, and our relative passivity in the face of the terrifying danger represented by the operating conditions in the nuclear power stations of Eastern Europe, which are so many Chernobyls in terms of power?
Vi bekræfter vor tillid til Kommissionen, og vi håber, at De, således som De har sagt, vil fortsætte dialogen med Parlamentet.
The vast majority in this House, ourselves included, are against nuclear tests, and the resumption of testing has led to renewed calls for negotiations on nuclear disarmament.
Det er et nyt forhold, som vi tilvejebringer.
I should therefore like to restate our position, which is that we remain opposed to nuclear tests.
Vi har vist Dem vor tillid ved at godkende Deres embede som formand for Kommissionen, det har vi også gjort med medlemmerne af Kommissionen.
We regret France's decision to resume testing without first consult ing its European partners.
De har uden tvivl og som den første af Deres slags givet dette bevis.
We expect the other nuclear powers to maintain the moratorium.
Pasty (UPE). — (FR) Hr. formand, kære kolleger, Kommissionen skulle besvare følgende spørgsmål: Kan Euratomtraktaten og mere specielt artikel 34 i den bruges på de franske atomforsøg?
We hope that negotiations on the comprehensive test ban treaty will lead to a zero option in 1996, and we note with satisfaction that, if the newspapers are correct, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin reached agreement on this yesterday.
Og afhængig af svaret på dette spørgsmål, hvilke konklusioner drager Kommissionen af de data, der er meddelt af de franske myndigheder, direkte eller som følge af de udsendte eksperter til stedet?
As I said, all this could well pave the way for coordinated negotiations on nuclear disarmament.
Euratom-Traktaten er meget tydelig. Kommissionen siger med rette, at den på grundlag af artikel 34 skal udføre kontrol og ved meget farlige forsøg skal afgive en udtalelse eller give sin tilslutning.
When reactor No 1 of Bulgaria's Kozloduy station was brought back into service it warranted a couple of minutes under urgent procedure during the last part-session, bracketed with a hailstorm in Greece and floods in France and Italy!
Den skal også gøre det, når det drejer sig om militære forsøg.
Who are we trying to fool?
Kan Euratomtraktaten bruges på militære atomforsøg eller ikke? Jeg hører til dem — men jeg er ikke den eneste i Parlamentet, for vi hørte i vores sidste mødeperiode en fremragende demonstration af vores kollega Jean-Pierre Cot i denne retning —jeg hører altså til dem, der mener, at svaret kun kan være negativt.
Did we seriously ask the experts who gave evidence to Parliament the following question: which is the real threat to the survival of our species — the French tests which will come to a final end by next spring, or the terrifying danger represented by the Bulgarian station and several others?
Fortolkningen af en international traktat, der skaber forpligtelser eller rettigheder for suveræne stater, kan faktisk kun være restriktiv.
Our responsibility, yours and mine, ladies and gentlemen, and that of all the Commissioners, is involved.
I tvivlstilfælde er det den nationale suverænitet, der vinder.
Are we going to take the urgent steps to make these stations operate properly and
Hr. kommissionsformand, De nåede i går til en definitiv konklusion.
We recognize that the Commission is fulfilling its obligations under the Treaty in a responsible way, within the limited scope available to it.
De erklærede, at den deles af alle medlemmer af Kommissionen.
The Commission has reached a unanimous decision.
De erklærede, at denne beslutning blev truffet på et retsligt og videnskabeligt grundlag.
We place our trust in the Commission, and we hope that you will continue to hold talks with Parliament, as you said you would.
Det viser sig, at artikel 34 ikke skal anvendes, og at de franske myndigheders foranstaltninger på nuværende tidspunkt er tilstrækkelige for beskyttelsen af befolkningens og arbejdstagernes sundhed.
We expressed our confidence in you when we approved your appointment as President of the Commission, as we did with all the other members.
Af forsigtighedsgrunde har De også bekymret Dem om de eventuelle langtidsvirkninger.
We would like to hold political talks with you on an equal footing.
De opfordrer kraftigt de franske myndigheder til, hvad De har kaldt nødvendigheden af på lang sigt at kontrollere radioaktiviteten i prøvesprængningsområderne og at meddele Kommissionen resultaterne af denne kontrol.
You have undoubtedly, and for the first time, given us proof of your readiness to do so, and we feel that this is an extremely positive development.
Pasty ekstra penge i budgettet til sikring af atomkraftværkerne i Central- og Østeuropa, og det er denne Forsamling, som i denne uge på ny vil stille ekstra penge til rådighed herfor.
Pasty done in the first place, rather than waiting until it was too late before we took action?
Måske skal hr. Pasty følge Europa-Parlamentets arbejde mere omhyggeligt.
provide the necessary resources, even if it takes ECU 10 billion?
For øvrigt var der en risiko, hvis man påberåbte sig anvendelsen af artikel 34 på de militære atomforsøg, ved at begrænse den strengt til de aspekter, der er forbundet med forsvaret af miljøet og befolkningernes sundhed, for at åbne mulighed for en egentlig proceduremæssig fordrejelse, idet formålet ikke længe var at sikre forsøgenes ikke-farlige karakter, men at genere gennemførelsen af årsager, der intet har at gøre med miljøet og den offentlige sundhed, som fru Green sagde før.
This brings me to the credibility of the Commission, which I fear has taken something of a beating in recent months, particularly because it has appeared to be so divided. The divisions were primarily caused by the go-it-alone approach adopted by the Commissioner responsible for environmental affairs, Mrs Bjerregaard, who time and time again presented herself as the avenging angel, carrying the flaming sword of the Euratom Treaty in her hand.
Genstanden for denne forhandling er Kommissionens ansvar som Traktatens vogter og også Kommissionens troværdighed som Traktatens vogter. Jeg vil først sige noget om Kommissionens ansvar, og jeg vil slutte med en konklusion om dens troværdighed, navnlig miljøkommissærens, fru Bjerregaards, troværdighed.
I demand a full debate on this issue, in order to put pressure on the Commission, the Council and the G7 which will be dealing with the matter as a result of the request from Jacques Chirac, to take the measures the situation requires urgently because it is no exaggeration to say that the survival of our planet depends on them.
Denne fornemmelse af en proceduremæssig fordrejelse kunne styrkes ved, at man afventede det 193. forsøg til at rejse spørgsmålet om anvendelse Euratom-traktaten.
Time and again, Mrs Bjerregaard made it clear that she thought France's actions were in breach of the Euratom Treaty, and she even suggested in a draft letter from the Commission to the French Government that France should be accused of this.
De forsøg, der er udført før, har været ikke-farlige.
The Commission did not take up her suggestion, choosing instead to head in entirely the opposite direction.
Denne bemærkning fører mig for øvrigt til følgende spørgsmål.
There has been at least one victim: Mrs Ritt Bjerregaard.
Frankrig synes endelig at have stillet de nødvendige oplysnin ger til rådighed til trods for, at det drejer sig om atomforsøg med militære formål.
de Vries (ELDR). — (NL) Mr President, with your permission I should like to give my reaction to what Mr Pasty just said.
Det glæder jeg mig over. Fordet betyder, at Euratom-Traktaten fremover ikke blot anvendes for civile forsøg, men også for militære.
The subject of this debate is not the responsibilities of the French Government, nor is it this House's responsibilities towards nuclear power stations in Eastern Europe.
Men, siger kommissionsformanden i denne forbindelse, disse oplysninger var desuden fuldstændige og tilstrækkelige.
But if Mr Pasty insists on bringing up the question of our responsibility, I would say this.
Vi vil studere dem omhyggeligt, også i lyset af udtalelser fra de eksperter, som ikke fik lov til at hente oplysninger på stedet.
Perhaps Mr Pasty should make more of an effort to keep abreast of what Parliament is doing.
Så siger Kommissionen, at der ikke var tale om et særlig farligt forsøg. Også dette er en kontra-intuitiv konklusion.
I hope that her next publication will not be the diary of a commissioner, but the memoirs of an ex-commissioner.
Hvorfor finder forsøgene ellers ikke sted på fransk jord?
Mrs Bjerregaard's credibility has been called into question, as has the credibility of the Commission as a whole.
Hvorfor finder de så sted på en atol tusinder af kilometer fra La France profonde?
It is time the Commissioner began a full-time career as a writer.
Verdenssundhedsorganisationen har sagt, at der ikke findes noget risikofrit atomforsøg.
I am very glad that it has done so, because this means that from now on the Euratom Treaty will no longer apply only to civilian tests, but will cover military ones as well.
Kommissionen siger, at vi endnu ikke kan vurdere denne risiko.
Was it not France which refused the Commission experts access to Mururoa?
Vi erkender, at den eksisterer, men Frankrig må fortsætte, indtil skaden er sket.
I am pleased that the Commission is to give us the data it promised us.
Ville det ikke have været mere nærliggende ikke først at lade skaden ske, inden der gribes ind, men at forhindre, at der sker skade på længere sigt?
We shall look at it very carefully, taking into account the opinions of the experts who were unable to obtain information at the test site.
Har man alvorligt stillet de eksperter, der er hørt af Parlamentet, følgende spørgsmål: Hvor ligger den egentlige fare for vores races overlevelse?
The Commission says that there has been no question of particularly dangerous experiments, but this too is hard to swallow.
I de forsøg, som Frankrig har gennemført, og som afsluttes endeligt til foråret, eller i den forfærdelige trussel, som det bulgarske atomkraftværk og nogle andre udgør?
France clearly regards the tests as dangerous, other wise why is it not conducting them on French soil?
Vores ansvar, mit, Deres, mine kære kollegers også alle kommissærernes er involveret.
Why are they being held on an atoll thousands of miles away from the French heartlands?
Det fører mig til Kommissionens troværdighed. Jeg er bange for, at Kommissionens troværdighed alligevel har lidt skade i de forløbne måneder.
We therefore find ourselves in a rather paradoxical situation: information is available exclusively from the French Government.
Den har navnlig lidt skade, fordi Kommissionen internt viste sig at være meget splittet.
This is not the most open of sources, and the Commission should certainly not allow its delegation to be sent packing, and supinely accept the French Government's explanations.
Denne splittelse skyldes allerførst miljøkommissærens, fru Bjerregaards, solistiske optræden.
Moreover, as far as data are concerned, the hearing held by this Parliament a few days ago most definitely did not rule out risks to citizens.
Gang på gang har fru Bjerregaard indtaget en holdning som hævnens engel med Euratom-Traktatens flammende sværd i hånden.
Nor did it rule out risks to health and the environment; in fact, it specifically alerted us to geological risks to the environment.
Jeg anmoder om, at vi får en god diskussion om dette tema for at få Kommissionen, Rådet og G7, der efter anmodning fra præsident Jacques Chirac vil tage sig af sagen, til med den hast, som situationen kræver, at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger, som det ikke er overdrevet at sige, at vores planets overlevelse afhænger af.
I am referring to Professor Vincent's report, which was very clear-cut on this point and should at the very least raise certain questions in all our minds.
Hun har endda foreslået i et udkast til et brev fra Kommissionen til den franske regering at bebrejde Frankrig dette.
But it is the third point which astonishes me the most.
Kommissionen støttede hende ikke. Kommissionen gik i fuldstændig modsat retning.
The long-term effects of the tests, so the Commission says, cannot be assessed as yet.
De franske atomforsøg har i hvert fald haft ét offer: fru Ritt Bjerregaard.
In the long term, there is certainly a danger of contamination, but the Commission claims that we cannot yet assess how great this is likely to be.
Det er på tide, at hun drager konsekvensen og træder tilbage.
We agree that there is a risk, but France is allowed to carry on until the damage is done.
Hun har spillet højt spil, hun har tabt, det er på tide, at hun går.
Would it not have made more sense to have prevented long-term damage from being
Men hvis hr. Pasty tager vort ansvar op til diskussion, vil jeg gerne svare ham følgende.
But you also said — and I welcome this — that the aim must be a 'zero option'.
Det var denne Forsamling, som sidste år optog
How could we not agree?
Fru Bjerregaard har netop offentliggjort en dagbog om sine kolleger og om venligtsindede statsoverhoveder.
But another very real risk arises here: are we to believe that the tests currently being carried out by France will provide a zero option?
Jeg håber, at hendes offentliggørelse deraf ikke næste gang igen vil være en
I believe the opposite: they set a dangerous precedent!
Tværtimod er nedsættelsen af antallet af forsøg kun udtryk for en ting, nemlig at de ikke tjener nogen nytte, og det er netop som følge heraf, at Kommissionen ikke kan begrænse sig til at tage alt, hvad den franske regering gør, til efterretning.
I shall concentrate on Article 34 of the Euratom Treaty, which stipulates that any Member State carrying out dangerous experiments in the nuclear field must take special precautions for the protection of public health.
Min gruppe finder, at Kommissionen kan og skal udrette mere, og opfordrer den til at gøre det straks. Dersom den ikke gør det, vil den fortsat, som den har gjort hidtil, vise sig totalt magtesløs.
This article also specifies in its second paragraph that if another Member State is affected — in this case the Pitcairn Islands — the assent of the Commission shall be required.
del af hendes dagbog som kommissær, men en del af hendes memoirer som eks-kommissær.
It has often been said, in the course of our rather exhausting debates over the past few weeks, that China is also carrying out tests.
Ellers vil ekkoet fra Mururoa fortsætte med at forfølge hende selv og Kommissionen.
That is true, and we have not taken a sufficiently firm stand against them.
Der er tale om fru Bjerregaards troværdighed.
Only a few days ago, at the meeting of the Joint Assembly in Brussels, an important resolution condemn ing the testing was adopted.
Der er tale om Kommissionens troværdighed.
My group feels that the Commission can and must do more, and I call upon it to do so immediately.
Det er på tide, at denne kom missær indleder en fuldtidskarriere som forfatterinde.
There, Mr President, we part company, especially where long term risks are concerned.
Pettinari (GUE/NGL). — (IT) Hr. formand, jeg tager sammen med medlemmerne af min gruppe de meddelelser, som kommissionsformand Santer og kommissær Bjerregaard har givet forsamlingen i dag, til efterretning.
In fact, the Mururoa lagoon reef is like a mountain in the sea, 4,000 metres high and with 45 degree slopes, hence 100%. Professor Vincent made it clear that this lagoon reef is an extremely unstable structure.