Übersetzung für "Einstimmige beschlussfassung" in Englisch

Additionally, in keeping with the positions adopted in this Parliament, I propose that the references to the need for voting in the Council on this subject to be unanimous should be removed.

When the European citizens realise that this debate is the debate on the efficient running of the institutions, on unanimous voting or the different vetoes, the debate on the need to proceed with all speed in the interests of serving Europe itself, well, then the significance of this debate will be understood and, indeed, become crystal clear.

This proposal relates to fiscal instruments which Member States use and it should certainly be adopted, but it should be adopted with the correct legal basis, which is Article 93, providing for unanimity of voting at Council level.

I am happy to accept the legal personality of the Union if, in exchange, Mr Carnero González agrees to say that, if a European constitution came into being, it should first and foremost acknowledge the superiority of the national constitutions, the freedom of choice of the Member States on the world stage and unanimous decision-making or variable geometry in the third pillar.

As far as voting by unanimity or by a qualified majority are concerned, our hopes are therefore in the hands of the Members of the Convention, once again.

Well then, opting to preserve unanimity in a 25-Member State Union may have very serious consequences, especially if the decisions hinge on economic or tax proposals.

On the contrary, whenever it is a question of reducing our protection, decisions should be taken by unanimity so as not to damage anyone's interests.

Moreover, we cannot allow, as they stand, bridging clauses which make it possible to turn procedures requiring a unanimous decision into procedures requiring a majority decision without going through the process of an official revision, in other words without the need to ask for solemn ratification at national level.

The European Council in fact preferred to retain the unanimity rule, albeit allowing for the possibility of changing to a qualified majority rule – provided that the decision to do so is taken unanimously at the European Council

I am delighted that, as regards foreign trade, the draft Treaty envisages decisions by unanimity for concluding agreements in the field of cultural and audio-visual services when these risk undermining the linguistic and cultural diversity of the Union.

I am delighted that the draft Treaty requires unanimity on agreements in the field of cultural and audio-visual services where these could undermine the cultural and linguistic diversity of the Union".

It fears however that applying the unanimity rule to their adoption could generate a crisis or force the Union to scale down its political ambitions.

Where INTERREG programmes involve non?Community countries, in particular applicant countries, the presence of these countries' representatives can generally be considered to be necessary for the effective implementation of the programme, given the rules of procedure of the monitoring and steering committees (which in most cases have already been decided), which establish the membership of these representatives from outside the Union and the requirement for decisions to be passed unanimously.

Unless a specific basis is established in the Treaty, an EU-law based approach would probably require the use of Article 352 TFEU, which implies a unanimous vote of the Council and the consent of the European Parliament.

Community environmental legislation has been adopted in accordance with the legal provisions set out in the EEC Treaty, whereby in most cases decisions have to be adopted unanimously.

The Presidency, on the basis of work carried out under the Portuguese Presidency, identified around fifty provisions where abandoning unanimity could be considered.

However, this situation caused concern amongst some Member States as to the extent of possible legislation in the areas concerned, leading them to maintain the unanimity rule as a means of protection.

Several Convention members, however, stressed that it was important not to restrict the scope of enhanced cooperation within the CFSP framework and even less so if unanimity remained the rule.

It was to act in accordance with the cooperation procedure in the areas of improvements in the working environment to protect employees, working conditions, information and consultation of workers, equal opportunities for men and women on the labour market and equal treatment at work and occupational integration of people excluded from the labour market, while unanimous decision was required while deciding on social security and social protection of workers, protection of workers where their employment contract is terminated, representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers, conditions of employment for thirdcountry nationals legally residing in the Community and financial contributions for promotion of employment and job-creation, without prejudice to the provisions relating to the Social Fund.

Dispensing with the need for a unanimous decision will serve the objective of providing suitably prompt humanitarian aid in crisis situations.

In this context, some members suggested that provision be made for augmented qualified majority voting to replace unanimity.

At that same IGC, the Presidency proposed to introduce the rule of qualified majority voting in certain provisions of the Treaty which provided for codecision together with the unanimity voting rule, considering that the requirement of unanimity in the codecision procedure could be regarded as an institutional anomaly which might void the codecision procedure of its substance.

However, in various revisions of the Treaty the unanimity rule was gradually replaced by the qualified majority rule.

It is generally felt that the unanimity voting rule guarantees that all Member States will abide by Council decisions.

The negotiating side of things has hitherto proved disappointing and yielded negative results: to our knowledge, on not one point in the total 75 cases of unanimous voting has total agreement been reached, and in Italy, for the first time, a recent survey has shown that, in one of the largest regions, the North East, Europe is falling out of favour.

Any revision would be dealt with by the special legislative procedure - requiring a unanimous vote in Council if there is an upward revision of the ceilings and the consent of Parliament by a simple majority of members.

A complicated web of clauses, and unanimous decision-making in particular, has prevented strong action being taken. Basel II regulators meant well but encouraging banks to buy sovereign debt has turned out to be a costly mistake which has pushed rates higher in peripheral Eurozone countries.

Also, decisions must be taken unanimously for all major issues.

That will not be easy while decisions on this issue must be made unanimously.

It also states categorically that unanimous decision making must be abolished in the Council.

One point on which we as Parliament must take care is the requirement of unanimity in decision-making.

Moreover, the safeguard provided by the unanimous decision-making process would prevent it from being applied in an undesirable way.

The rule of consensus, and often unanimity, prevails in countless cases.

The need for unanimity makes decision-making difficult, regardless of which instrument is used.

One is that it strongly favours increased federalism within the EU, for example point 28 which complains that the requirement for unanimity 'makes decision making difficult' , and point 32 which requires that 'applicant countries must appreciate' that the EU is 'a process of political, economic and currency unity' and point 30 which complains that certain countries are able to renounce European Court activity.

In effect, until now, Objective 1 regions were determined by the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, such as NUTS regions where GDP per capita is less than 75 % of the Community's mean.

That the EU's 15 Member States agreed on 106 declarations, 13 common positions and 10 joint actions should be seen as a positive result of intergovernmental cooperation founded on the unanimous decision-making procedure.

At the same time, the Commission stated - in the report to which I have referred - that it was aware that resort to Article 235 may be much more difficult or even impossible in an enlarged Community in which the principle of unanimity in decision-making is retained.

First of all, the incompatibility of unanimous decision-making in the Council with the conciliation procedure emerged clearly.

Under these circumstances I feel it is impossible to depart from the rule that the decision should be taken by the Council acting unanimously.

Similarly, we have included, in the second part of these amendments, the provision that the Council shall decide by unanimity, something to which Mr Wiebenga - with whom I regret to say I cannot agree on this occasion - has already referred.

Certainly, I can see the additional benefit of an intergovernmental Schengen with unanimity in decision-making as a prerequisite.

The Swedish Government has stated that it wants to see such a charge, but only if a unanimous decision on this can be reached which, however, is the same thing as no decision at all.

What can be said about a resolution that seeks to impose the unacceptable ‘European constitution’ proposed by the ‘Convention’ on the governments, national parliaments and citizens of the various countries that make up the EU, and which advocates extending qualified majority voting and simplifying procedures that facilitate moving from unanimity to qualified majority decision-making, calling into question the right of ‘small’ countries to defend its interests?

However, in view of the remarks we heard from some of our Spanish friends, I would not say that harmonisation of the text of the decisions was not difficult for the General Affairs and External Relations Council, but in the end, we managed to agree with our Spanish and Cypriot colleagues on a text which reflects unanimity, joint decision-making and collective thinking.

I therefore feel that, once again, the obligation to achieve unanimity on every single part of the Charter as well as on the final result will prove extremely hampering when we come to evaluate the content of the Charter itself.