natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the spring of 1979 I was Minister for Health and Social Security when, a few months before the first elections to the European Parliament by universal surage, President Giscard d’Estaing asked me if I would be willing to head a list of candidates for this election.
1979. aasta kevadel, kui olin tervishoiu- ja sotsiaalkindlustusminister, küsis president Giscard d’Estaing minult mõned kuud enne Euroopa Parlamendi esimesi üldisi valimisi, kas oleksin nõus olema Euroopa Parlamendi valimistel valimisnimekirja esinumber.
JULY 1979 JANUARY 1982
JUULI 1979 JAANUAR 1982
I accepted this honour without hesitation, having been a militant supporter of European integration since the end of the war, regarding it as the only way to set the seal on reconciliation between France and Germany and avoid a recurrence of the tragedies of the past.
Nõustusin kõhklemata selle austava pakkumisega, sest olin sõja lõpust alates seisnud tulihingeliselt ja vankumatult Euroopa ülesehituse eest, milles nägin ainsat võimalust, et tagada leppimine Prantsusmaa ja Saksamaa vahel ning vältida mineviku tragöödiate kordumist.
After the excellent result achieved by my list, President Giscard d’Estaing, who was sensitive to symbols of reconciliation and hence aware of the signicance of a former deportee, suggested to the other governments that I should be made President of the new Parliament, something that I had never imagined happening.
Pärast minu valimisnimekirja väga head tulemust tegi president Giscard d’Estaing, kellele olid olulised leppimise sümbolid ning kes mõistis väga hästi, mida kehastas kunagine küüditatu, teistele valitsustele ettepaneku nimetada mind uue parlamendi presidendiks, mida ma ei olnud kunagi võimalikuks pidanud.
That is how, on 13 July 1979, by an absolute majority in the second round, I came to be elected President of the new assembly.
Nii valitigi mind 13. juulil 1979. aastal teises hääletamisvoorus absoluutse häälteenamusega uue koosseisu presidendiks.
The task that now faced me was not without its problems.
Minu ees seisev ülesanne ei olnud kergete killast.
First of all, the nature of the new Members’ mandate had changed now that they were elected by universal surage, as opposed to the former situation in which members of the Assembly were representatives of the national parliaments.
Kõigepealt muutus üldiste valimistega uute parlamendiliikmete mandaadi olemus, sest seni olid nad esindanud liikmesriikide parlamente.
The democratic underpinning had now become more
Nüüdsest oli demokraatlik alus otsesem.
To this was added a geographical issue.
Sellele lisandus geograaline probleem.
Up to then the European Assembly had usually met in Luxembourg, where most of its ocials also lived.
Seni tuli Euroopa Assamblee enamasti kokku Luksemburgis, kus elas muuhulgas enamik ametnikke.
In Strasbourg, the Parliament had neither its own chamber nor any oces, and therefore had to squat for one week each month in the premises of the Council of Europe, bringing all the necessary documents with it from Luxembourg.
Strasbourgis ei olnud parlamendil oma istungisaali ega kontoreid ning seetõttu kasutas ta ühel nädalal kuus Euroopa Nõukogu ruume ja Luksemburgist toodi kõik vajalikud dokumendid.
One can imagine that this peripatetic existence was not to the liking of some of the parliamentarians, so that I had to contain a certain level of disgruntlement.
On mõistetav, et selline kahe koha vahet käimine ei meeldinud mõnedele parlamendiliikmetele ning mina olin sunnitud vastasrinda talitsema.
It took months for this new modus operandi to become second nature. We still had to continue to hold a few sessions in Luxembourg.
Läks kuid, enne kui uue korraga harjuti, kuid me pidime endiselt mõned istungid Luksemburgis pidama.
It was there that I remember with emotion welcoming the Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat not long before he was assassinated.
Tänagi mõtlen veel liigutatult sellele, et ma võtsin just seal vastu Egiptuse presidendi Anwar al-Sadati veidi enne seda, kui ta mõrvati.
The Members of the European Parliament, as one may imagine, wanted to assert their new authority in budgetary matters.
Parlamendiliikmed soovisid arusaadavalt oma uusi volitusi eelarve valdkonnas maksma panna, ent 1980. aasta eelarve ületas pisut künnist, mis Euroopa Parlamendile asutamislepingutega ette oli nähtud.
The budget that had been drawn up for 1980 turned out to have slightly exceeded the ceiling allocated by the treaties to the European Parliament.
Kuna aga küsimus oli võitluses nälja vastu maailmas, siis teatasin kõhklemata, et eelarve on nõuetekohaselt vastu võetud.
I remember the real interest that the new European Parliament aroused outside the Community in those now distant days.
Meenub, et tol ammusel ajal äratas Euroopa Parlament ühendusest väljaspool tõelist uudishimu.
This interest and curiosity was all the greater because the Presidency of the Parliament had been given to a woman, which at that time was still looked upon with some disapproval.
Uudishimu kasvatas tõsiasi, et Euroopa Parlamendi president oli naine, sest tol ajal oli see veel häiriv.
I was able to observe this when I went to Lomé for the signing of the treaties with the African, Pacic and Caribbean countries.
Märkasin seda Lomés, kuhu sõitsin, et kirjutada alla lepingutele Aafrika, Kariibi mere ja Vaikse ookeani riikidega.
I remember that both inside and outside the Community I always received a warm welcome, including in the United States, Canada, China and Japan.
Meenub, et nii ühenduse sees kui väljaspool seda, eelkõige USAs, Kanadas, Hiinas ja Jaapanis, võeti mind alati väga hästi vastu.
Whenever possible I involved the Commission permanent representatives in these visits.
Kaasasin oma visiitidele nii tihti kui võimalik komisjoni alalisi esindajaid.
Throughout a presidency that lasted two and a half years, I never had any diculty in always being seen by myself and others as standing above party divisions and representing the whole of Parliament.
Mul ei olnud raske pidada end kahe ja poole aastase ametiaja jooksul kogu parlamendi esindajaks, kes seisis parteidest kõrgemal, ja seda olin ka teiste jaoks.
In short, this sometimes dicult, always fascinating presidency has remained the most rewarding period of my life.
Lühidalt öeldes oli mu ametiaeg mõnikord keeruline, aga alati põnev ja see on olnud mu elu kõige sündmusterohkem aeg.
I look back on it with nostalgia, as I do on the subsequent years I spent at the European Parliament before returning to the French Government in 1993.
Mõtlen nostalgiaga oma ametiajale ja aastatele, mis ma seejärel parlamendis veetsin, enne kui ma 1993. aastal Prantsuse valitsusse naasin.
JANUARY 1987 JULY 1989
JAANUAR 1987 JUULI 1989
On reecting on the key moments of my presidency of the EP, my mind immediately went back to the election which preceded it, simply because it was an exciting, close-run thing.
Mõeldes tähtsamatele hetkedele ajast, mil ma olin Euroopa Parlamendi president, meenusid mulle kohe sellele eelnenud valimised, sest need olid põnevad ja tasavägised.
My rival – and eventual successor in post – Enrique Baron Crespo and I both ran campaigns which were energetic but which contained no element of personal rancour or invective.
Nii minu kui ka mu rivaali – ja hilisema järeltulija sel ametikohal – Enrique Baron Crespo kampaania oli jõuline, kuid ei sisaldanud mingit isiklikku vimma ega solvanguid.
After my victory, by the slim margin of five votes, we could remain friends, holding diering views on the details of ‘Europe‘, but with a common commitment to making its institutions work in the service of the peoples of our continent.
Ka siis, kui ma olin valimised napi viie häälega võitnud, jäime sõpradeks. Meil olid küll erinevad vaated Euroopa arengu detailide osas, kuid me olime mõlemad pühendunud sellele, et panna ELi institutsioonid tööle meie maailmajao rahvaste hüvanguks.
I believe that is the way our politics, at whatever level, should always function, and regret that they seldom do.
Olen veendunud, et meie poliitika peaks igal tasandil selline olema, kuid pean kahetsusega nentima, et enamasti see nii ei ole.
Every President of the EP since 1979 can say that their period in oce coincided with a time of important change.
Igaüks, kes on alates 1979. aastast olnud EP president, võib öelda, et tema ametiajal toimusid olulised muutused.
That is a reection of the fact that our institution, and indeed political Europe as a whole, has been constantly evolving.
See peegeldab asjaolu, et Euroopa Parlament ja tegelikult kogu poliitiline Euroopa tervikuna on pidevas arengus.
My key moments as President were linked to one of those crucially important evolutionary stages in the history of the Parliament and of the Union, namely the Single European Act (SEA).
Kriitikud võivad vaielda, milline on selle protsessi süvendamise ja laiendamise ideaalne tasakaal, kuid ei saa eitada seda, et toimunud on mõlemad ja tehtud on suuri edusamme, isegi kui kõik etapid ei ole olnud täiuslikud.
After a period of comparative stagnation in the early 1980s, the ‘Big Idea’ which pulled Europe forward was the development, via the Single European Act (SEA) from a common market towards an integrated economy, which in turn led in the direction of the Union and the subsequent evolutionary stages.
Minu ametiaja tähtsamad hetked olid seotud parlamendi ja liidu ajaloo ühe üliolulise etapiga, nimelt ühtse Euroopa aktiga.
I am proud that the Parliament had played a signicant role in making the case for the single market and when the SEA came into force, just six months after I became President, I knew that a new era had begun in Parliament.
Suur idee, mis viis Euroopat pärast 1980. aastate alguse suhteliselt stagneerunud perioodi edasi, oli liikumine ühtse Euroopa akti abil ühisturu juurest integreeritud majanduse poole, mis omakorda viis liidu sünnini ja sellele järgnevate arenguetappideni.
This required swift re-organisation at both political and administrative levels.
Olen uhke, et parlament mängis olulist rolli ühisturu loomisel.
A much more sophisticated legislative programme had to be put in place and the sectoral parliamentary committees, suitably staed, focused on the new, tight timetables.
Kui ühtne akt oli jõustunud – kõigest pool aastat pärast seda, kui ma olin presidendiks saanud –, siis teadsin, et parlamendi jaoks on alanud uus ajajärk.
All this was terra incognita for all concerned, members and ocials alike, and the fact that Parliament managed successfully to adapt to the new arrangements with only a very few roughnesses I consider a real achievement.
See nõudis kiireid ümberkorraldusi nii poliitilisel kui ka haldustasandil. Tuli koostada palju keerukam õigusloomekava ning luua piisava koosseisuga valdkondlikud parlamendikomisjonid, mis hakkasid tööle uue, tiheda ajakava kohaselt.
I recall three moments thereafter which I believe demonstrate that the world outside had taken notice of the progress achieved and had begun to take on board the fact that ‘Europe’ was no longer a collection of countries, but a more-than-embryonic entity, which had to be taken seriously.
See oli kõikidele asjaosalistele – nii parlamendiliikmetele kui ka ametnikele – tundmatu maa ning ma pean suureks saavutuseks seda, et parlamendil õnnestus uue korraga edukalt kohaneda ja esines vaid üksikuid tõrkeid.
Perhaps the most important of these was a presidential visit to the Soviet Union, whose leadership had decided to recognise the Community as such and to develop relations between the Supreme Soviet and the EP.
Hilisemast perioodist meenub mulle kolm sündmust, mis minu arvates näitavad, et maailm oli märganud meie edusamme ja hakanud harjuma tõsiasjaga, et Euroopa ei ole enam rühm riike, vaid arenev kooslus, mida tuleb tõsiselt võtta.
We were not to know at the time that the end of the Communist empire was but a few years away, but it was obvious from my discussions with President Augusts Voss of the Supreme Soviet and with the State President, Andrei Gromyko, that part of the changes that were already underway in Moscow involved a new policy which accorded greater importance to the European Community and to the EP.
Vahest olulisim neist sündmustest oli minu visiit presidendina Nõukogude Liitu, mille juhtkond oli otsustanud ühendust sellisena tunnustada ning arendada suhteid NSVL Ülemnõukogu ja Euroopa
The second such moment was my attendance at a meeting of South American heads of Government in San Juan de Costa Rica.
Teine selline sündmus oli minu osalemine Lõuna-Ameerika valitsusjuhtide kohtumisel Costa Ricas San Juanis.
They were striving, much as the European ‘Founding Fathers’ had done some thirty years before, to create institutions through which common objectives could be achieved. (The Andean Parliament and Mercosur were two of the fruits of these eorts.)
Nii nagu Euroopa Ühenduse „esiisad” umbes kolmkümmend aastat varem, püüdsid ka nemad luua institutsioone, mille abil saavutada ühiseid eesmärke (Andide Parlament ja Mercosur olid kaks nende jõupingutuste viljadest).
What struck me most was the admiration which those leaders had for the European enterprise and their appreciation of the degree of success we had already secured.
Mis mulle kõige rohkem silma jäi, oli nende valitsusjuhtide imetlus Euroopa Ühenduse vastu ja tunnustus meie edusammudele.
Our adventure had been unique in political history and we had become a role model for others.
Meie ettevõtmine oli poliitika ajaloos ainulaadne ja meist oli saanud teistele eeskuju.
The third key moment which I recall was the visit of Pope John-Paul to address a Plenary Session of the EP.
Kolmas oluline sündmus, mis mulle meenub, oli paavst Johannes Paulus II külaskäik, mille ajal ta pidas Euroopa Parlamendi täiskogu ees kõne.
It became famous for the dramatic confrontation between the visitor and the Rev. Ian Paisley.
Külaskäik sai kuulsaks paavsti ja reverend Ian Paisley dramaatilise vastasseisu tõttu.
This was a duel which was a gift to the tabloid press, even though it lasted but a few seconds, and, since I had anticipated it, the incident was always under control.
See duell oli kingitus kõmuajakirjandusele, kuigi see kestis vaid mõne hetke, ning kuna ma aimasin seda ette, oli olukord
These three memories of my presidency lead me, in conclusion, to draw attention to the paradox that the successes of the EU and its institutions are frequently more apparent to those looking at the Union from the outside.
Neid kolme sündmust meenutades soovin lõpetuseks juhtida tähelepanu paradoksile, et ELi ja selle institutsioonide edusammud on sageli paremini nähtavad väljastpoolt liitu kui liidu seest.
The challenge remains to make those successes more obvious to the citizens of Europe.
Meie ülesandeks jääb ka edaspidi need edusammud Euroopa kodanikele paremini nähtavaks teha.
LORD PLUMB SIGNS THE 1989 BUDGET WITH THE PRESIDENTINOFFICE OF THE COUNCIL, FRANCISCO FERNANDEZ ORDOÑEZ
LORD PLUMBLORD PLUMB JA NÕUKOGU EESISTUJA FRANCISCO FERNANDEZ ORDOÑEZ ALLKIRJASTAVAD 1989. AASTA EELARVE
JULY 1989 JANUARY 1992
JUULI 1989 JAANUAR 1992
The period during which I was President of the European Parliament was a time marked by a historic leap for Europe.
Periood, mil olin Euroopa Parlamendi president, langes Euroopa jaoks suurte ajalooliste muutuste ajajärku.
I began my presidency in July 1989 as President of the Parliament of the Community, and I concluded it proposing, on behalf of the EP, the birth of the European Union at the Maastricht European Council.
Alustasin oma ametiaega Euroopa Ühenduse Parlamendi presidendina 1989. aasta juulis ja lõpetasin selle, tehes Euroopa Ülemkogu kohtumisel Maastrichtis Euroopa Parlamendi nimel ettepaneku Euroopa Liidu loomise kohta.
The first key moment was the fall, on 9 November 1989, of the Berlin wall, symbolising the disappearance of the iron curtain which had divided Europe into two and presaging the end of the cold war.
Esimene oluline sündmus oli Berliini müüri langemine 9. novembril 1989, mis sümboliseeris maailmajao kaheks jaganud raudse eesriide kadumist ja kuulutas külma sõja lõppu.
My first reaction after welcoming the event was to invite President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl to appear together before the plenary of Parliament that very same month, in order to give an active impetus to the German unication process, for which a temporary EP committee was created.
Tervitasin toimunut ja esimese sammuna kutsusin samal kuul president Mitterrandi ning kantsler Kohli koos Euroopa Parlamendi täiskogu istungile, et väljendada tahet toetada aktiivselt Saksamaa ühinemisprotsessi, ja samal eesmärgil loodi ka ajutine parlamendikomisjon.
From then on, event followed event at a dizzying speed.
Sellest hetkest alates arenesid sündmused tormiliselt.
In my initial speech to the European Council in Strasbourg in December 1989, I expressed Parliament’s strong desire to see all the Member States work together in order to open the door to the accession of the countries of central and eastern Europe.
Oma avakõnes Euroopa Ülemkogu kohtumisel Strasbourgis 1989. aasta detsembris väljendasin Euroopa Parlamendi kindlat tahet näha kõiki liikmesriike koostööd tegemas, et avada uksed Kesk- ja Ida-Euroopa riikide ühinemiseks.
On that occasion, I put forward, on behalf of Parliament, a ten-point plan in which it was proposed to expand the existing IGC for the establishment of economic and monetary union (EMU) and to set up another one for political union.
Sel puhul esitasin Euroopa Parlamendi poolt kümnepunktilise plaani, milles tehti ettepanek laiendada majandus- ja rahaliidu loomiseks kavandatavat valitsustevahelist konverentsi teise, poliitilist liitu käsitleva konverentsiga.
To ensure that this reform did not rest in the governments’ hands alone, I proposed that the EP should also be involved, in order to reinforce the reform’s democratic nature and eciency.
Et kõnealune reform ei jääks üksnes valitsuste pädevusse, tegin ettepaneku koostööks Euroopa Parlamendiga, et tugevdada reformi demokraatlikku olemust ja tõhusust.
Thus began the process leading to the proposal and subsequent creation of the Preparatory Interinstitutional Conference (PIC).
Nii tehti ettepanek institutsioonidevahelise ettevalmistava konverentsi kohta, mis hiljem saigi teoks.
That led, in March 1990, to the first-ever invitation in the history of the Community to a president of the European Parliament to address the Council, and, specically, to introduce our proposal for a PIC.
Selle tulemusel kutsus ministrite nõukogu 1990. aasta märtsis – esmakordselt Euroopa Ühenduse ajaloos – Euroopa Parlamendi presidendi selgitama ettepanekut institutsioonidevahelise ettevalmistava konverentsi kohta.
From that moment on, the agenda was dominated by the swiftly increasing pace of history, as one event followed on another’s heels.
Sellest hetkest alates mõjutas parlamendi tegevuskava enneolematul kiirusel arenev sündmusteahel.
The countries in process of freeing themselves from totalitarian communism wished to receive the President of the European Parliament, a body which they saw as incarnating the democracy and freedom they had for so many years yearned for.
Totalitaarse võimu alt vabanenud riigid soovisid Euroopa Parlamendi presidenti vastu võtta, kuna Euroopa Parlament sümboliseeris kõnealuste riikide jaoks nii palju aastaid ihatud demokraatiat ja vabadust.
The signicant events of 1990 included an invitation in February from the Polish Diet to explain the EP’s view of matters, and, later, similar invitations from the Hungarian and Czechoslovak Parliaments; and, on 3 October, German Unity Day, with a ceremony in the Bundestag with President von Weiszäcker, in the company of the Commission President, Jacques Delors, and myself as President of the European Parliament, followed that very day by a speech which I gave in the Paulskirche in Frankfurt, a building symbolising Germany’s constitutional values.
Aastasse 1990 mahtusid järgmised olulised sündmused: küllakutse Poola Seimilt 1990. aasta veebruaris Euroopa Parlamendi seisukohtade tutvustamiseks, seejärel kutse Ungari parlamendilt ning hiljem Tšehhoslovakkia parlamendilt; samuti 3. oktoober, Saksamaa ühinemise päev, mil osalesin Euroopa Parlamendi presidendina koos president von Weiszäckeri ja komisjoni presidendi Jacques Delors’iga pidulikul tseremoonial Saksamaa Bundestagis, ning samal päeval pidasin tervituskõne Frankfurdis Pauluse kirikus, mis on Saksamaa konstitutsionalismi sümbol.
In that time of democratic eervescence and reform, relations with the national parliaments came to take on their full signicance.
Selles demokraatliku pulbitsemise ja reformide õhkkonnas omandasid suhted riikide parlamentidega oma tõelise tähenduse.
On 29 November 1990, in Montecitorio (Rome), we held the joint ‘Assizes’, i.e. the first-ever conference bringing together the European Parliament and the parliaments of the Member States, which adopted a joint resolution endorsing the concept of the European Union.
29. novembril 1990 korraldasime Montecitorios (Roomas) ühisistungi, mille näol oli tegemist esimese Euroopa Parlamendi ja liikmesriikide parlamentide vahelise kohtumisega, ja kus võeti vastu ühisresolutsioon Euroopa Liidu loomise heakskiitmiseks.
In December, I had the privilege of submitting that resolution to the Rome European Council, which decided in favour of holding two parallel IGCs, one on EMU and the other on political union.
Detsembris oli mul au seda tutvustada Euroopa Ülem-kogule Roomas, kus otsustati kokku kutsuda kaks paralleelset valitsustevahelist konverentsi – üks majandus- ja rahaliidu jaoks ning teine poliitilise liidu tarvis.
Over the length of 1991, the meetings of the Preparatory Interinstitutional Conference made it possible, for the first time, for twelve representatives of the EP to engage in dialogue with the twelve governments, the Council and the Commission.
1991. aasta jooksul oli kaheteistkümnel Euroopa Parlamendi esindajal institutsioonidevahelise ettevalmistava konverentsi kohtumiste käigus esmakordselt võimalus dialoogiks kaheteistkümne valitsuse, nõukogu ja komisjoniga.
Parliament’s representation was able to draw up a ‘shortlist’ of proposals which proved of major use in introducing a number of key subjects, for the most part deriving from the draft treaty text adopted in 1984 and enriched by experience.
Euroopa Parlamendi esindajad panid ettepanekutest kokku lühinimekirja, mis aitas sisse viia peamised küsimused, mis sisaldusid suures osas parlamendi poolt 1984. aastal vastu võetud lepingu eelnõus ja mida oli täiendatud saadud kogemuste põhjal.
The main points were: European citizenship and the single currency as pillars; codecision as an ordinary legislative procedure; participation in the election of the Commission President, whose term of oce was extended from two years to five; and recognition of European political parties.
Tähtsaimad teemad oli järgmised: Euroopa kodakondsus ja ühisraha kui alustalad; kaasotsustamismenetlus seadusandliku tavamenetlusena; osalemine komisjoni presidendi valimises, kelle mandaat pikenes kahelt aastalt viiele; ning Euroopa poliitiliste erakondade tunnustamine.
In addition to the intensive pace of change within the Community, the European scene witnessed a number of what can only be called political earthquakes, in which the EP too took part.
Lisaks ühenduse intensiivsele sisedünaamikale elas Euroopa üle tõeliselt tormilisi poliitilisi sündmusi, milles osales ka Euroopa Parlament.
The most dramatic of these was the tragic dismemberment of former Yugoslavia – a process which put the Community’s internal cohesion to the test. Here, I made all possible eorts on behalf of the EP to find peaceful solutions, with the presidents of the parliaments of the Yugoslav federation and its republics.
Kõige dramaatilisem sündmus oli endise Jugoslaavia traagiline lagunemisprotsess, mis pani proovile ühenduse sisemise ühtekuuluvuse ja millega seoses tegin parlamendi nimel koos Jugoslaavia Föderatsiooni ja selle vabariikide parlamentide esimeestega suuri jõupingutusi rahumeelsete lahenduste leidmiseks.