natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De forskellige grupper skal kunne rumme mange forskellige opfattelser.
It must be possible for many different views to be accommodated within the various political groups.
Desuden er den effektivitetsgevinst, som kan opnås med denne ændring, helt ubetydelig.
Besides, the gain in efficiency which this amendment may offer is entirely negligible.
Ændringsforslag 15 om, at man ikke længere kan danne en gruppe med medlemmer fra kun et enkelt land, kan vi heller ikke acceptere.
Amendment No 15, according to which it will no longer be possible to form a group with Members from only one country, is also not acceptable.
Det begrundes med, at store lande ikke skal have nogen fordele, men det er uholdbart.
It has been motivated by the desire not to give large countries an advantage, but it is untenable.
Store lande har altid en fordel, f.eks. når det drejer sig om at indsamle 29 underskrifter.
Large countries always have an advantage, for example when it comes to securing 29 signatures.
Motivet til denne ændring er, at man ønsker at nedtone de nationale politiske forskelle her i forsamlingen og derigennem give den en mere europæisk karakter.
The intention behind this amendment is to tone down national political differences in this House and thereby to give it a more European character.
Fabre-Aubrespy (I-EDN). — (FR) Fru formand, kære kolleger, jeg har som samtlige medlemmer af min gruppe stemt imod fru Haugs betænkning om Den Europæiske Unions egne indtægter.
Fabre-Aubrespy (I-EDN). — (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, along with all the members of my group, I voted against Mrs Haug's report on the European Union's system of own resources.
Det er beklageligt, at Parlamentet i dette vigtige spørgsmål om den fremtidige finansiering af Fællesskabets budget — som det så ofte er tilfældet — lader ideologiske og politiske kriterier veje tungere end den nødvendige retfærdighed og gennemsigtighed, der bør karakterisere finansieringen af Den Europæiske Union.
It is regrettable that, on this important issue of the future financing of the Community budget, this House, as is often the case, allowed ideological and political criteria to take precedence over the fairness and transparency which should characterise the financing of the European Union.
Reelt består den løsning, som Kommissionen og Revisionsretten går varmt ind for i deres rapport om forvaltningen af systemet for egne indtægter, i at fortsætte den udvikling, som vi har kendt gennem adskillige år, og at udvide BNP-indtægten, som er den eneste, der i høj grad afslører medlemsstaternes rigdomme.
In fact, the solution proposed by the Commission and by the Court of Auditors in its report concerning the assessment of the system of own resources was to continue the development of recent years and increase the GNP-based resource, which is the only genuine indicator of Member States' wealth.
Fuldstændig i modsætning hertil ønskede Parlamentet en økonomisk selvstændighed udelukkende af årsager der hang sammen med ønsket om at forøge Europa-Parlamentets beføjelser.
However, the majority of Parliament advocated financial autonomy, for reasons solely linked to a determination to increase the European Parliament's powers.
Dette forekommer os ikke at være forene ligt med den nødvendige rationalisering af Fællesskabets budget, hvis samlede beløb kan — hvilket Kommissionen selv har bekræftet — og bør forblive fuldstændigt uændret.
This is incompatible with the need to rationalise the Community budget, the overall total of which can be, and must remain, subject to strict ceilings, as the Commission itself confirmed.
Jeg glæder mig naturligvis over, at de forskellige afsnit om medfinansiering er blevet forkastet.
I naturally welcome the fact that the various paragraphs on cofinancing have been rejected.
Det var den eneste kategori af udgifter, hvortil der var ændringsforslag.
This was the only area of expenditure subject to amendment.
Denne holdning går, som vi allerede har sagt, imod traktaten, idet udgifterne til landbruget er obligatoriske udgifter.
As we have already said, the adoption of such a stance is incompatible with the aims of the Treaty, because agricultural expenditure is compulsory.
Hertil kommer, at der overhovedet ikke var nogen bestemmelser om en nødvendig reduktion af andre budgetudgifter, fordi disse ikke er obligatoriske.
Moreover, no provision was made regarding the need to reduce other non-compulsory forms of expenditure.
Så selvom vi altså glæder os over, at Budgetudvalgets forslag er blevet forkastet på dette punkt, kan vi kun beklage rapportens generelle tone. Det er grunden til, vi ikke har kunnet godkende den.
Therefore, although we welcome the fact that the Committee on Budgets' proposal on this matter was rejected, we disagree with the overall tone of the report and were therefore unable to adopt it.
Bourlanges (PPE). — (FR) Fru formand, jeg vil gerne kort forklare, hvorfor jeg efter at have udsendt en mindretal sudtalelse til Haug-betænkningen har stemt for samme betænkning.
Bourlanges (PPE). — (FR) Madam President, I should just like to briefly explain that after having drawn up a minority opinion on the Haug report, I voted in favour of it.
Jeg ønskede simpelthen at sige, at kernen i min argumentation var, at jeg bestred, at der var overensstemmelse med traktaten om medfinansiering af landbrugs udgifterne, sådan som det fremstilles i Haug-betænkningen.
I simply wanted to point out that my argument was essentially based on whether agricultural cofinancing, as proposed by the Haug report, was compatible with the aims of the Treaty.
Da dette element er blevet fjernet ved vores afstemninger, er det blevet muligt for mig at stemme for betænkningen. Jeg vil gerne til slut udtrykke glæde over, at min mindretalsudtalelse i udvalget er blevet til en flertalsholdning i Parlamentet.
As this was rejected by Parliament, I was able to vote in favour of the report and I am delighted that my minority opinion in committee has become the majority opinion of the House.
Raschhofer (NI). — (DE) Fru formand, vi afviser både samfinansieringsprincippet og at indføre degressivitet af tilskuddene.
Raschhofer (NI). — (DE) Madam President, we reject both the principle of cofinancing and the introduction of a degressive approach to subsidies.
Vi er modstandere af, at revideringen af det europæiske budget skal ske på landmændenes bekostning.
We are opposed to the idea of revising the European budget at the expense of our farmers.
Desuden vender vi os kraftigt imod at lukke op for nye ressourcer til egne indtægter, fordi vi ikke vil overbelaste borgerne med nye ekstra byrder.
Moreover, we are also vehemently opposed to the development of new ways of providing the EU with its own resources, because we do not wish to impose any additional burdens on the people of Europe.
Det er desuden forkert at benægte, at der er en sammenhæng mellem samhørighedsfonde og eurozonen.
It is also wrong to dispute the connection between the Cohesion Fund and the euro area.
Hvis man er moden til euroen, behøver man ikke disse penge.
No country that is ready for the euro is in need of these funds.
Solidaritet kan og må ikke være ensidig.
Solidarity cannot and must not be one-sided.
Generelt må det være en målsætning for finansieringen af EU-budgettet at skabe større gennemsigtighed og retfærdighed i fordelingen af byrderne.
In general terms, the aim on the revenue side of the EU budget must be to create greater transparency and an equitable distribution of burdens.
Efter at samfinansieringsprincippet er blevet afvist af Parlamentet — hvilket vi også er tilfredse med — og dele af betænkningen, som vi er enige i, er blevet vedtaget, mens andre er blevet forkastet, har vi undladt at stemme ved den afsluttende afstemning.
Since the House has rejected the principle of cofinancing — a decision which we welcome — and since some parts of the report that reflect our views were adopted, while others were rejected, we abstained in the final vote.
Blak, Iversen, Kirsten Jensen og Sindal (PSE), skriftlig. — De danske socialdemokrater har i dag stemt imod betænkningens forslag om samfinansiering af den fælles landbrugspolitik med de nationale budgetter.
Blak, Iversen, Kirsten Jensen and Sindal (PSE), in writing. — (DA) Today the Danish Social Democrats voted against the report's proposal for cofinancing of the common agricultural policy through national budgets.
Vi har den holdning, at støtten til landbruget i EU i stedet skal nedtrappes.
We are of the opinion that the support for agriculture in the EU should be phased out instead.
Gahrton, Holm, Lindhohn og Schörling (V), skriftlig. — (SV) En ændring af EU's budget er ønskværdig og nødvendig for fremtiden.
Gahrton, Holm, Lindholm and Schörling (V), in writing. — (SV) A change in the EU budget is desirable and necessary for the future.
EU's budget er alt for omfattende, hvilket helt klart medfører store problemer.
The EU budget is much too wide-ranging, which is clearly leading to considerable problems.
Dette gælder ikke mindst alle rapporterne om bedragerier og uregelmæssigheder, som koster EU's skatteydere ca. SEK 40 milliarder kroner om året, det vil sige et beløb svarende til det dobbelte af den svenske medlemsafgift til EU.
Not least among these are all the reports of fraud and irregularities, which are costing the EU taxpayers some 40 billion a year in Swedish money, i.e. a sum corresponding to double the Swedish membership contribution to the EU.
Det . skal der ændres på.
There must be changes here.
Meget af det skyldes, at ingen føler samhørighed med EU, og at flertallet bare ser EU og dets budget som en måde at få støtte på.
In the first instance, much of this has to do with the fact that no one has any sense of belonging to the EU, and that most only see the EU and its budget as a source of grants and subsidies.
Forslaget om, at EU's største udgiftspost, landbrugspolitikken, skal medfinansieres via de nationale budgetter, betragter vi som et vigtigt skridt i retning af at mindske EU's samlede budget.
We consider the proposal that the EU's biggest item of expenditure, the agricultural policy, should be financed jointly through the national budgets to be an important and correct step in the direction of reducing the total EU budget.
Vi tror bestemt, at dette vil føre til, at medlemsstaterne engagerer sig mere i EU's landbrugspolitik, og at de vil vise større omhu med hensyn til, hvordan støtten til landbrugspolitikken håndteres.
We believe that, as a result of this, the Member States are bound to become more involved in the EU's agricultural policy and to show greater concern over how appropriations under the agricultural policy are managed.
Vi modsætter os alle krav i betænkningen om, at EU skal til at føre skattepolitik og lede harmoniseringen af den økonomiske politik, frem for alt på grundlag af argumenter om, at EU skal blive en »stadig mere betydningsfuld global politisk og økonomisk aktør.« Medlemsstaterne, Europa og verden har ikke brug for og vil ikke have gavn af en supermagt, hverken økonomisk, politisk eller militært.
We oppose all the demands in the report that the EU should take on responsibility for fiscal policy and should direct the coordination of economic policy, especially against the background of arguments such as that of the Union having a role as a 'global political and economic actor of growing importance'.
Punkt 9 og 11 afviser vi på det kraftigste, idet man ønsker, at EU skal have et klart ansvar for skattelovgivningen og desuden beføjelser til at inddrive og anvende skatterne.
We have strong objections to paragraphs 9 and 11, because they seek to give the Union clear responsibility for fiscal legislation, and moreover powers to raise and appropriate the taxes.
Skattepolitikken og den økonomiske politik skal fastlægges på nationalt plan, selvom det til en vis grad forudsætter et internationalt samarbejde om visse klart specificerede skatter/afgifter.
Fiscal policy and economic policy must be decided at national level, even though a certain degree of international cooperation is needed on some clearly specified taxes or duties.
Men det er altså ikke det samme som en EU-bestemt skattepolitik, hvor EU tager sig af skatteindtægterne. terne.
But that is not the same thing as a fiscal policy decided by the EU, in which the EU takes control of the taxes raised.
Hyland (UPE), skriftlig. — (EN) Det er relevant, at vi drøfter denne beretning, mens Den Europæiske Unions ledere er i gang med hårde og vanskelige forhandlinger om den fremtidige finansiering af selve Den Europæiske Union. Mens vi her i dag drøfter spørgsmålet om den rabat, som Den Europæiske Union giver den britiske regering hvert år, bør denne sag nu ses i en overordnet sammenhæng.
Hyland (UPE), in writing. — It is timely that we are discussing this report when European Union leaders are engaged in tough and contentious negotiations on the future financing of the European Union itself While we are debating here today the issue of the rebate which the European Union gives the British Government on an annual basis, this matter should now be put into its overall context.
Det er klart, at nogle af EU's medlemsstater, især Nederlandene, Østrig og Tyskland, mener, at de betaler for meget til Unionens årlige budget.
It is clear that some Member States of the EU, most notably the Netherlands, Austria and Germany, believe that they are contributing too much money to the European Union annual budget.
Man påstår, at den britiske regering opnåede en for favorabel aftale i Fontainebleau i 1984 med hensyn til den rabat, som Den Europæiske Union giver landet hvert år.
It is argued that the British Government secured too favourable a deal at Fontainebleau in 1984 with regard to the rebate which the European Union gives to it annually.
Dette spørgsmål skal nu forhandles mellem Den Europæiske Unions ledere, Europa-Parlamentet og Europa-Kommissionen.
This is now a matter for negotiations between European Union leaders, the European Parliament and the European Commission.
Der skal skabes en ramme for den fremtidige finansiering af Den Europæiske Union for perioden 2000-2006.
A framework for the future financing of the European Union for the period 2000-2006 must be put in place.
En bestemt finansiel ligning er særligt tydelig.
One particular financial equation is certainly very clear.
Den Europæiske Unions årsbudget vil fortsat blive forøget gennem en afgift på de enkelte medlemsstater til den maksimale sats på 1, 27% af BNP.
The European Union annual budget will still be raised by means of a levy on individual Member States to the maximum of 1.27% GDP.
Det er allerede besluttet, at den fremtidige finansiering af udvidelsen af Den Europæiske Union skal hentes inden for parametrene for denne budgettildeling på 1, 27%.
Decisions have already been taken that the future financing of the enlargement of the European Union is to come from within the parameters of this 1.27% budgetary allocation.
Det er klart, at der må findes et kompromis mellem de lande, der påstår, at de bidrager for meget til EU, og de lande, der har fået en lempelig behandling via Den Europæiske Unions årsbudget i de senere år.
It is clear that a compromise is going to have to be found between those countries which are claiming that they contribute too much to the EU, as equally, those countries which have received favourable treatment from the European Union annual budget in recent years.
Den britiske regering falder helt klart inden for sidstnævnte kategori, og i løbet af forhandlingerne forud for Berlin-topmødet den 25. marts er det klart, at der er behov for en ændring af reglerne for det beløb, som den britiske regering hvert år modtager i form af rabatter fra EU.
The British Government certainly falls into this category and as the negotiations progress to the Berlin summit on 2 5 March next it is clear that there is bound to have to be a relaxation of the rules governing the amount which the British Government receives via rebates from the EU each year.
Med hensyn til den fremtidige finansiering af Den Europæiske Union er der en ting, som ikke kan komme på tale: nemlig en mulig renationalisering af selve den fælles landbrugspolitik.
With regard to the future financing of the European Union, one option which cannot be considered is the possible renationalising of the common agricultural policy itself.
En sådan beslutning vil få alvorlige følger for Irland på grund af vores enestående afhængighed af landbruget og familiebrugenes betydning som et væsentligt træk ved den økonomiske og sociale struktur i landområderne.
Such a decision would have serious implications for Ireland because of our unique dependence on agriculture and the importance of family farming as an essential feature of the economic and social infrastructure of rural areas.
Martínez (NI), skriftlig. — (FR) For tredje gang efter Luxembourg-traktaten i 1970 og topmødet i Fontainebleau i 1984 er problemet om finansiering af EU-samarbejdet på dagsordenen.
Martinez (NI), in writing. — (FR) For the third time since the Luxembourg Treaty of 1970 and the Fontainebleau summit of 1984, we are faced with the problem of how to finance European integration.
Konstateringen er medlemsstaterne enige om, men der er den største uenighed, når man skal finde løsninger på det forelagte problem.
The Member States agree with the assessment of the problem, but are extremely divided as to how it should be solved.
Konstateringen holder fast i illusionen, det komplicerede og det uretfærdige i den aktuelle finansiering af EU. Vi ved, den hviler på fire fødder, med fire indtægter.
At the heart of the problem lies the complicity and injustice of the way in which Europe is presently financed; in other words, it rests on four supports with four forms of resource.
Det uretfærdige ligger i fordelingen af byrderne.
The injustice lies in how the burden is distributed.
Både Tyskland og Frankrig betaler mere, end de får igen. Man taler derfor om nettobidragydere.
Germany contributes more than it receives in return, as docs France, which is why we talk in terms of 'net contributors'.
I modsætning hertil vinder Spanien, Irland, Grækenland, og Portugal takket være Samhørighedsfonden. righedsfonden.
On the contrary, Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal benefit thanks to the Cohesion Fund.
Men i virkeligheden er den økonomiske opgørelse mere kompliceret end dette.
However, the Member States' financial contributions are much more complex than that.
F.eks. betaler Belgien og Nederlandene tilsyneladende meget, fordi der er toldafgifter på import via Antwerpen og Rotterdam.
For example, Belgium and the Netherlands seem to pay a great deal because there are customs duties on imports through Antwerp and Rotterdam.
Det ser således ud til, at de to lande betaler meget, men de afholder reelt ikke disse toldafgifter.
Belgium and the Netherlands therefore seem to pay a great deal but they do not really have to bear the cost of these customs duties.
Endvidere skal den økonomiske status for medlemsstaterne ses i forhold til de kriterier, man har valgt for at udføre beregningerne.
What is more, each Member State's financial contribution is subject to the criterion used to make the calculations.
Sammenligner man reelt overførselen fra hver enkelt borger med den indtægt, denne råder over, som individuelt BNP, falder regnestykket modsat ud.
It we were to compare how much each inhabitant pays out of their income in terms of per capita GDP, the result is reversed.
Indbyggerne i Nederlandene, som bidrager til Samhørighedsfonden, yder individuelt et større bidrag end indbyggerne i Nordeuropa. Det er allerede ét eksempel på det komplekse system.
People in the Netherlands who contribute to the Cohesion Fund make a greater individual sacrifice than
En undersøgelse af, hvordan moms- eller BNP-indtægten beregnes, og især den tekniske bestemmelse om udjævningen af det britiske bidrag vil afsløre en endnu mere utrolig kompleksitet.
An examination of exactly how the VAT-based or GNP-based resources are calculated, as well as the technical mechanism used to cap the British contribution, would reveal an even more unlikely complex situation.
Denne tekniske fordunkling skjuler virkelig nogle illusioner, især den vigtige illusion om, at Den Europæiske Union finansieres via egne midler, skatteoverskud og via momsen, selvom finansieringen stadig sker i form af statslige bidrag.
This technical impenetrability hides many mistaken beliefs, in particular, the belief that the European Union is financed by its own resources, by taxes, through VAT, whereas in reality, it is still financed by state contributions.
Det er også en illusion at få os til at tro, sådan som Kommissionen gør det, at åbningen mod øst og udvidelsen af EU's kompetencer kan lade sig gøre med en uændret budgetramme på 1, 27% af BNP.
It is also a mistake to think that enlargement towards the East and the extension of the EU's powers will be achieved with the same budget envelope of 1.27% of GNP, as the Commission would have us believe.
EU af i morgen vil kræve stadig flere midler, og den vil således ende med at stille sig spørgsmålet om beskatningen.
Tomorrow's Europe will require ever more financial resources and will eventually be forced to tackle the problem of taxation.
Det er der, der er uenighed om løsningerne.
This is where the disagreements arise in terms of the best solution to adopt.
Når den falske gode idé om medfinansiering først en gang har skilt sig ud — og det vil reelt være endnu en indtægt, der er skabt i smug uden de nationale parlamenters ratifikation — vil den grundlæggende uenighed om principper og teknikker stadig bestå.
Although the mistakenly good idea of cofinancing, which in fact would be a new resource created on the sly without being ratified by national parliaments, has been ruled out, fundamental differences on principles and techniques remain.
Skal man, hvad angår principperne, bekræfte den britiske idé om en retfærdig tilbagebetaling?
As regards principles, should the British idea of the 'juste retour' be upheld?
Skal man ud fra simpel sund fornuft begrænse den pålagte byrde for at undgå, at visse lande, især Frankrig, udplyndres?
Should we limit, out of simple common sense, the sacrifice imposed to prevent the despoliation of some countries, such as France?
Skal vi virkeligt nå frem til en »enhedsskat« med overførsel af en stadigt større del af BNP, når man ved, at en sådan skat vil være uretfærdig?
Should we really move towards a 'single tax' with an everincreasing GNP-based contribution, even though we know that a single tax is a grossly unjust tax?
Uanset hvilken indtægt, der vedtages, skal denne da være progressiv, som Spanien ønsker det, eller proportional?
Whichever resource or resources are chosen, should they be progressive as Spain advocates, or proportional?
Skal man for at beslutte sig bevare regelen om enstemmighed, der kun befordrer sikker heden, eller skal man holde sig til flertalsafstemninger, hvor man alligevel før eller siden ender?
Above all, as regards decision making, should the unanimous rule, which is the only way to guarantee security, be maintained or should we opt for majority voting, which we usually do when there are drifts involved?
Til denne uenighed om principperne svarer uenigheden om teknikkerne.
The differences involving principles and techniques are inseparable.
Kan vi finansiere EU ved at betale CO2—afgifter?
Will Europe finance itself by making COj pay?
Det er kun De Grønne, der tror på det.
Only the Greens believe that this is possible.
Vil en EU-skat blive lagt på indkomsten?
Will there be a European income tax?
Europa-Parlamentets forhandlinger
These concepts are to be avoided.
Martinez medlemsstaterne, for vi ved jo godt, at det altid er de gamle skatter, der er de bedste, og som i sidste ende vil blive respekteret.
We should instead stick to the present system, in other words, financing through state contributions, because we know that old taxes are the best and are the ones that will be respected.
des Places (I-EDN), skriftlig. — (FR) Vi har som samtlige franske medlemmer af vores gruppe stemt imod betænkningen i den udformning, den blev vedtaget af plenarforsamlingen.
des Places (I-EDN), in writing. — (FR) Like the majority of the French members of our group, we voted against the report as adopted by the House.