natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Agreement we speak so positively about today – in 2014 –was therefore largely designed to address the challenges of the 1980s. 
Den avtalen vi taler pent om i 2014 er altså langt på vei svar på 1980-årenes utfordringer.
Since then we have seen major upheavals in Europe. 
Og siden den gang har vi vært vitne til store omveltninger:
The EC has become the EU. 
EF er blitt til EU.
Cooperation has been extended into new areas, and the old pillar structure has gone. 
Samarbeidet er utvidet til nye områder, og den gamle søylestrukturen er borte.
EU policy increasingly cuts across different policy areas and sectors. 
Politikken skjærer i økende grad på kryss og tvers.
The German and the Finnish mark, for example, have been replaced by the euro. 
Tyske og finske mark er blitt til euro.
The EU, originally 12 countries solely in Western Europe, has expanded to include 28 countries across the whole continent. 
De opprinnelige 12 land i vest er blitt til 28 i hele Europa.
With so many different voices at the table, it is harder for us to make our voice heard, and fewer countries are able draw on a collective EEA memory. 
Med så mange rundt bordet er det vanskeligere for oss å bli hørt, og det er færre land med EØS-hukommelse.
Because we are out of sight, we are often out of mind. 
Fordi vi er ute av syne, er vi også ofte ute av sinn.
That is the nature of the EEA. 
Slik er EØS.
And, in my view, it is our job to find ways to compensate for that. 
Og jeg er opptatt av at det er vår oppgave å bøte på det.
If we are to make ourselves heard, we need to take part in the arenas open to us under the EEA Agreement. 
Skal vi bli hørt, må vi delta på de Arenaene avtaleverket åpner for.
And we also need to have good arguments that win the support of others. 
Og skal vi bli hørt, må vi ha gode argumenter som andre kan slutte seg til.
To exert an influence, we need to get involved. 
Skal vi påvirke må vi medvirke.
I would like to add, however, that, as a general rule, we participate in the internal market on an equal footing with the other countries. 
La meg føye til: Hovedregelen er at vi deltar i det indre marked på lik linje med de andre landene.
This is one of Norway’s overriding interests and one that we need to actively defend. 
Det er en overordnet offensiv norsk interesse.
We do not need to be equally involved in all matters in order to exert an influence. 
Vi behøver ikke være like tungt inne for å påvirke i alle saker.
More often than not, our interests coincide with those of the EU. 
Oftest har vi felles interesser med EU.
EU policy is usually good for Norway too. 
Oftest er EUs politikk også bra for Norge.
And when 28 countries in Europe agree, we usually agree too. 
Og når 28 land i Europa enes, vil det som regel være slik at vi også kan enes.
But not always, and this is why we need to think and act strategically. 
Men ikke alltid, og derfor må vi være strategiske.
We need to identify what is important to us. 
Vi må klargjøre hva som er viktig for oss.
Let’s take one of the most obvious areas – climate and energy policy – where significant developments are already under way. 
La oss ta noe av det mest åpenbare – klima- og energiområdet – som nå er i betydelig utvikling.
This spring the EU will finalise its policy framework for climate and energy for the period up to 2030. 
Denne våren vil EU meisle ut sin klima- og energipolitikk frem mot 2030.
This touches on core Norwegian interests. 
Dette berører norske kjerneinteresser.
That is why the Government submitted input to the EU last autumn on what we believe the main elements of this policy should be. 
Derfor sendte Regjeringen i fjor høst et innspill til EU om hvilke hovedelementer vi mener denne politikken bør være tuftet på.
The feedback we have received from Brussels is that the Commission is interested in hearing about Norway’s experience and appreciates being able to draw on our expertise. 
Tilbakemeldingen fra Brussel er at Kommisjonen setter pris på å få høre norske erfaringer og bruke vår kompetanse.
Many of the points in the Commission’s proposal are in line with our recommendations. 
Kommisjonens forslag er på mange punkter sammenfallende med våre anbefalinger.
A key element of the proposed framework is an ambitious target for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, with a more robust and effective emissions trading system as the most important tool for achieving this. 
Det legges blant annet vekt på et ambisiøst mål for å redusere utslipp av klimagasser med et styrket kvotehandelssystem som viktigste virkemiddel.
Greater priority is also given to ensuring that energy markets are integrated and function smoothly. 
Og det legges økende vekt på integrerte og godt fungerende energimarkeder.
Cooperation in the EU has developed considerably since 1994, in both breadth and depth. 
EU-samarbeidet har utviklet seg betydelig siden 1994, både i bredden og i dybden.
In periods of growth and optimism in Europe, this process of integration has tended to be expanded to include more countries. 
I perioder med vekst og optimisme i Europa, har integrasjonen gjerne favnet flere.
Periods of economic stagnation in Europe have tended to bring deeper integration. 
I perioder med økonomisk stagnasjon, har samarbeidet blitt dypere.
We are seeing this now, in the wake of the biggest crisis Europe has undergone since the Second World War. 
Det siste ser vi nå i kjølvannet av den største krisen Europa har opplevd siden annen verdenskrig.
Predictions that the euro cooperation would collapse did not come true. 
Spådommen om eurosamarbeidets oppløsning, slo ikke til.
But the financial crisis uncovered major weaknesses in the European financial system and has led to closer cooperation and the development of supranational solutions in this area. 
Men finanskrisen avdekket store svakheter i det økonomiske bindingsverket, og har resultert i tettere samarbeid og overnasjonale løsninger.
Several of these solutions affect the internal market and as such go straight to the heart of our cooperation with the EU. 
Flere av løsningene berører det indre marked og går derfor rett til kjernen av vårt samarbeid med EU.
Three new financial supervisory authorities have been established, and this has implications for Norwegian financial institutions. 
Blant annet er det etablert tre finanstilsyn som har betydning for norske finansinstitusjoner.
We want to be involved, but Norwegian participation in these bodies is in principle incompatible with the Norwegian Constitution because they have the power to make decisions that are directly applicable to private entities. 
Vi ønsker å være med, men norsk deltakelse støter an mot Grunnloven fordi organene har kompetanse til å treffe beslutninger med direkte gyldighet for private aktører, som det heter.
This is an example of a European policy dilemma with no fixed answer – at the interface between law and politics. 
Et eksempel på et europapolitisk dilemma uten fasitløsning – i skjæringspunktet mellom jus og politikk.
The EFTA states need to work with the EU to find a solution we can live with. 
Så da må vi på EFTA-siden– i samarbeid med EU- finne en løsning vi kan leve med.
I can honestly say that this will be no easy task but I am confident that we will succeed. 
Det er krevende, det skal jeg ærlig innrømme, men jeg er trygg på at vi skal klare det.
And we will succeed without compromising the principles of the Constitution or Norwegian companies’ need for homogeneous legislation. 
Og vi skal klare det uten å gå på akkord med Grunnloven eller norske bedrifters behov for et enhetlig regelverk.
There are indeed challenges connected with the EEA Agreement, as I have mentioned. 
Ja, det er utfordringer knyttet til EØS-avtalen som jeg har vært inne på.
And there are democratic weaknesses in our form of association with the EU, as ARENA and many others have pointed out. 
Og, ja, det er demokratiske svakheter i vår tilknytning til EU som Arena, og mange med dem, peker på.
Primarily because we are not at the table where the decisions are being made. 
Først og fremst fordi vi ikke sitter rundt bordet der beslutningene fattes.
And some of us think that we should be. 
Og personlig mener noen av oss at det skulle vi gjerne ha gjort.
Some researchers at ARENA have described the EEA Agreement as a form of democratic self-harm. 
Enkelte forskere ved Arena har karakterisert EØS-avtalen som demokratisk selvskading.
I think this is going too far. 
Det mener jeg er å trekke det for langt.
Let me explain why. 
Og la meg forklare hvorfor.
Firstly, the EEA Agreement was approved by a three-quarters majority of members of the Storting (Norwegian parliament). 
For det første: EØS-avtalen ble vedtatt med ¾-flertall i Stortinget.
And when a small majority voted against EU membership in the referendum in 1994, it was in the knowledge that the EEA Agreement would be an alternative to EU membership. 
Og da et knapt flertall sa nei til EU i folkeavstemmingen i 1994, var det med kunnskap om EØS-avtalen og at den ville være et alternativ til EU-medlemskap.
Since then all six parliaments and all seven governments – regardless of their political colours – have supported the EEA Agreement and Norway’s other agreements with the EU, and governed on the basis of them. 
Siden den gang har samtlige 6 storting og samtlige 7 regjeringer – uavhengig av politisk farge - sluttet opp om og styrt på basis av EØS-avtalen og våre øvrige avtaler med EU.
This was by no means a given in an area that has at times been at the centre of severe political storms. 
Det er ingen selvsagt ting på et felt hvor det til tider har blåst kraftige politiske vinder.
Secondly, the EEA Agreement and Norway’s other agreements with the EU offer opportunities. 
For det andre: Det ligger muligheter i avtaleverket.
And the formalities are important here. 
Og formalitetene er viktige her.
The EEA Agreement gives us an opportunity to participate in the development of EU legislation at an early stage of the process, although there is no guarantee that we will be able to exert an influence. 
EØS-avtalen gir muligheter til å påvirke EU-regelverket i tidlig fase, selv om innflytelsen ikke er garantert.
But this goes for the EU member states too. 
Men det er den heller ikke for medlemslandene.
We have channels open to us and opportunities to participate. 
Vi har åpninger og mulighetsrom.
And I would like to stress – and all of you here today are more aware of this then anyone – that the EU is a vast communication and negotiating machine. 
Og jeg vil understreke - og det er jo dere i salen klar over mer enn noen andre: EU er et stort kommunikasjons- og forhandlingsmaskineri.
If you can get involved at an early stage and have sensible arguments, you will be listened to. 
Er man tidlig ute og har vettuge argumenter, blir man lyttet til.
My point is that we mustn’t be blinded by the limitations to European cooperation. 
Budskapet mitt er at vi ikke må stirre oss blinde på begrensningene.
Nor should we be blinded by Norway’s form of association with the EU. 
Vi må heller ikke stirre oss blinde på den norske tilknytningsformen.
Take for example our neighbouring countries Sweden and Denmark, which have remained outside the eurozone, or the UK and Ireland, which have opted not to participate in the Schengen cooperation. 
Ta for eksempel våre naboland Sverige og Danmark som står utenfor euroen, Storbritannia og Irland som står utenfor Schengen.
I am not saying that the distinction between members and non-members is irrelevant – quite the contrary. 
Med det mener jeg ikke at skillet mellom medlem/ikke-medlem er irrelevant – tvert imot.
But my point is that the European cooperation has always had and continues to have different groupings and configurations. 
Men poenget er at det europeiske samarbeidet har hatt og fortsatt har ulike lag og sirkler.
And it is just this, the fact that the EU has managed to strike a balance between diversity and homogeneity that has enabled the process of European integration to move forward. 
Og nettopp det at EU har klart å balansere mangfold og ensartethet, har bidratt til at europeisk integrasjon har maktet å bevege seg fremover.
Maybe not as effectively as we would sometimes wish, but forward all the same. 
Kanskje ikke så effektivt som man av og til skulle ønske, men likevel fremover.
On the whole, solutions have been found that ultimately benefit most of those involved. 
Slik at man i stor grad har klart å finne løsninger som til syvende og sist gagner de fleste.
When I or other members of the Government meet colleagues from EU institutions and EU member states, it is to discuss specific issues. 
Når jeg og andre regjeringsmedlemmer møter kolleger i EUs institusjoner og i EUs medlemsland, er det for å drøfte konkrete utfordringer.
What we should do to combat global warming, what we can do to increase Europe’s competitiveness, what we can do to prevent accidents like the one off the coast of Lampedusa last autumn, how we can best regulate air traffic – to mention a few areas. 
Det handler om hvordan vi skal bekjempe global oppvarming, hvordan vi kan øke Europas konkurransekraft, hvordan vi kan unngå ulykker som den vi opplevde utenfor Lampedusa i fjor høst, hvordan vi best kan regulere luftfarten - for å nevne noe.
This is European policy. 
Dette er europapolitikk.
But, above all, it is politics. 
Men først og fremst politikk.
And politics, as we know, is the art of the possible. 
Og politikk er som kjent det muliges kunst.
++++ 
++++
We are in an anniversary year. 
Vi befinner oss i et jubileumsår.
In the discussion on Norway and Europe, on the EU, the Constitution and the EEA, different views and voices can be heard. 
I diskusjonen om Norge og Europa, om EU, Grunnloven og EØS er det ulike syn og stemmer.
This makes for a lively discussion. 
Det gjør diskusjonen levende.
I am pleased that ARENA and the University of Oslo are involved, that they are taking part in the debate and helping to ensure that we are well informed about what is happening and that we have the keys to understanding how and why it is happening. 
Og jeg er glad for at Arena og Universitetet i Oslo engasjerer seg, deltar i debatten og bidrar til at vi får kunnskap både om hva som skjer og nøkler til å forstå hvordan og hvorfor det skjer.
This is vital if we are to have an open debate that takes us forward and makes us wiser and better able to make good decisions. 
Slik at vi kan ha en åpen debatt som bringer oss videre, som gjør oss klokere og bedre i stand til å ta gode valg.
I hope the discussion about the opportunities, paradoxes, dilemmas and issues in Norway’s relationship with the EU is kept alive long after this anniversary year ends. 
Jeg håper diskusjonen om mulighetene, paradoksene, dilemmaene og spørsmålene i Norges forhold til EU holdes levende langt utover dette jubileumsåret.
It is in the best interests of Norwegian democracy. 
Det er det norske demokratiet tjent med.
Thank you. 
Takk.
Humanitarian Forum,Oslo, 12.11.2009 
Humanitært Forum, 12.11.09
For my government, these facts are calls for action, State Secretary Gry Larsen said in a speech on 12.11.09. 
For my government, these facts are calls for action".
Friends and colleagues 
Friends and colleagues
A few weeks ago I met Herbert de Lima e Silva, a young boy in favela in Rio de Janeiro. 
A few weeks ago I met Herbert de Lima e Silva, a young boy in favela in Rio de Janeiro.
The odds were against him when he was born. 
The odds were against him when he was born.
Normally, he would have been destined for a life in crime and violence. 
Normally, he would have been destined for a life in crime and violence.
He would have dropped out of school at a young age, and been recruited to a criminal gang, dealing with drugs and handling guns. 
He would have dropped out of school at a young age, and been recruited to a criminal gang, dealing with drugs and handling guns.
As a former street child, the future did not look good for Herbert. 
As a former street child, the future did not look good for Herbert.
But Viva Rio, the renowned Brazilian organisation, has turned his life around. 
But Viva Rio, the renowned Brazilian organisation, has turned his life around.
Today, Herbert goes to school, he has a part time job as a receptionist 
Today, Herbert goes to school, he has a part time job as a receptionist
- And important in Brasil - he plays football. 
- And important in Brasil - he plays football.
A few months ago he visited Oslo and participated in the international football tournament, Norway Cup. 
A few months ago he visited Oslo and participated in the international football tournament, Norway Cup.
Why mentioning Herbert? 
Why mentioning Herbert?
For me he is a living example of what is possible. 
For me he is a living example of what is possible.
Changing the lives of thousands of children and youth means changing communities. 
Changing the lives of thousands of children and youth means changing communities.
And that, I believe, is where the key to fighting armed violence lies. 
And that, I believe, is where the key to fighting armed violence lies.
Let us never forget: Every day, armed violence kills more than 2000 people. 
Let us never forget: Every day, armed violence kills more than 2000 people.
That adds up to some 740 000 people annually. 
That adds up to some 740 000 people annually.
Many more are injured and traumatized, physically and mentally, and their loved ones are left devastated, and will often face brutal economic consequences as well. 
Many more are injured and traumatized, physically and mentally, and their loved ones are left devastated, and will often face brutal economic consequences as well.
This is no less than a global crisis. 
This is no less than a global crisis.
It is affecting the lives and security of hundreds of thousands of people, and threatening international peace and security. 
It is affecting the lives and security of hundreds of thousands of people, and threatening international peace and security.
It affects all societies and countries in the world, including Norway. 
It affects all societies and countries in the world, including Norway.
But –as it is in many world challenges –it is the poor who bear the highest prize. 
But –as it is in many world challenges –it is the poor who bear the highest prize.
It is their development that is threatened. 
It is their development that is threatened.
This we also know: In many urban environments, gun related violence is the single largest cause of death amongst young men. 
This we also know: In many urban environments, gun related violence is the single largest cause of death amongst young men.
Estimates also tell us that war-related violence decreases the annual growth of an average economy by around 2% per year. 
Estimates also tell us that war-related violence decreases the annual growth of an average economy by around 2% per year.
In non-conflict states faced with high levels of crime and violence, such as Brazil, the cost of violence is estimated at 7.3 percent of GDP. 
In non-conflict states faced with high levels of crime and violence, such as Brazil, the cost of violence is estimated at 7.3 percent of GDP.
Globally, the cost of non-conflict or criminal violence has been estimated at USD 163 billion per year; significantly more than the USD 120 billion spent on development assistance last year. 
Globally, the cost of non-conflict or criminal violence has been estimated at USD 163 billion per year; significantly more than the USD 120 billion spent on development assistance last year.
That puts things into perspective. 
That puts things into perspective.
But the cost of armed violence cannot always be measured in concrete terms 
But the cost of armed violence cannot always be measured in concrete terms
- Fear tears the fabric of societies. 
- Fear tears the fabric of societies.
- Insecurity destabilises governments and deters investments. 
- Insecurity destabilises governments and deters investments.
- Individuals and communities flee, or find themselves locked in life-or-death struggles to survive in environments where the guns rule and where there is no end to poverty. 
- Individuals and communities flee, or find themselves locked in life-or-death struggles to survive in environments where the guns rule and where there is no end to poverty.
The burdens caused by armed violence are simply unacceptable – both from a moral, humanitarian and legal viewpoint. 
The burdens caused by armed violence are simply unacceptable – both from a moral, humanitarian and legal viewpoint.
For my government, these facts are calls for action. 
For my government, these facts are calls for action.
As politicians we need to do something with this global crisis. 
As politicians we need to do something with this global crisis.
It will not be easy. 
It will not be easy.
When I was in Dublin for the final negotiations of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, we began talking about the next big issue within humanitarian disarmament – and the small arms challenge was of course high on the agenda. 
When I was in Dublin for the final negotiations of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, we began talking about the next big issue within humanitarian disarmament – and the small arms challenge was of course high on the agenda.
But as we here all know - armed violence is not a thing that can be banned – such as cluster munitions or anti-personnel mines. 
But as we here all know - armed violence is not a thing that can be banned – such as cluster munitions or anti-personnel mines.
Armed violence is the result of intertwined social, economical, cultural and political factors – that only can be addressed by pursuing many tracks at the same time, in a coherent and strategic manner. 
Armed violence is the result of intertwined social, economical, cultural and political factors – that only can be addressed by pursuing many tracks at the same time, in a coherent and strategic manner.
So far - our response to armed violence have not been good enough. 
So far - our response to armed violence have not been good enough.
We have focused on gun control, with various successes. 
We have focused on gun control, with various successes.
But we know that it is possible to reduce the number of arms in a society, and we also know that it can have a positive effect. 
But we know that it is possible to reduce the number of arms in a society, and we also know that it can have a positive effect.
I witnessed this in Brazil. 
I witnessed this in Brazil.
The common efforts of Viva Rio and the Brazilian government tell us that the collection of guns, combined with development and welfare programmes, reduces the murder rates. 
The common efforts of Viva Rio and the Brazilian government tell us that the collection of guns, combined with development and welfare programmes, reduces the murder rates.
We also know that simply removing the guns will not solve the problems, as new ones often replace them. 
We also know that simply removing the guns will not solve the problems, as new ones often replace them.
One million guns are lost and stolen every year. 
One million guns are lost and stolen every year.
And eight million new guns are produced in the same period. 
And eight million new guns are produced in the same period.
Therefore, we need to understand what feeds armed violence, and the reasons why people pick up arms. 
Therefore, we need to understand what feeds armed violence, and the reasons why people pick up arms.
Only then can we find effective ways to reduce armed violence and create safe societies. 
Only then can we find effective ways to reduce armed violence and create safe societies.
So what can States do? 
So what can States do?
First of all – States need to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem, the complexity of the issue and the fact that there is no one single way to tackle armed violence. 
First of all – States need to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem, the complexity of the issue and the fact that there is no one single way to tackle armed violence.
Then we need to get the facts right. 
Then we need to get the facts right.