Examples of using Compromise package in English and their translations into Czech
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
In writing.- I welcome the recommendations in the compromise package.
I welcome the compromise package, but at the same time I would like to emphasise that the compromise is a rather fragile one.
The last progress update can also be found in the declaration adjoined to the compromise package.
The European Commission is, therefore, able to accept the compromise package in order for an agreement to be reached at second reading.
This compromise package has removed a number of these threats and will hopefully lead to a better consumer environment across the EU.
In writing.-(NL) I voted with conviction in favour of the compromise package on economic governance as negotiated by us with the Council.
Together with the rapporteur, the Council and Commission, we have had a lot of discussions, andI think we have finally agreed on a compromise package on which we are all in agreement.
In writing.- I supported the compromise package and rejected those amendments seeking to extend the transitional period for the"repair clause.
The other issue about which I am disappointed is the specific inclusion of a reference in the compromise package to a possible ban on the export of barometers.
In writing.- I was able to support the compromise package reached across this house on the Lienemann report on the marine environment.
My comrades and I have tabled many amendments to it, and those amendments are either favoured by the Committee on the Environment ortheir spirit is built into the compromise package.
In writing.- We have adopted with a big majority the compromise package reflecting the Green position, to which our group has substantially contributed.
The compromise package now before us is the result of intensive talks in which gentlemanly behaviour had to be sought to some extent, though in the end it was found, to the benefit of one and all.
The European Commission is therefore in a position to accept the compromise package of amendments in order to reach agreement on the directive at second reading.
Member of the Commission.- Mr President, I would like to thank all the speakers in today's discussion for theirvery constructive contributions and I urge you to support this compromise package before us today.
The result of the negotiations is the compromise package submitted for your vote, which amounts to simplification and modernisation of the current legal framework.
Finally, let me reassure my Spanish colleagues that the people of Almadén will have my full support for their just demands, which,in my view, can be achieved fully through the compromise package and not in opposition to it.
I reaffirm the Commission's full support for the compromise package of measures that has been agreed on this very important legislative instrument at second reading.
The compromise package agreed in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is far from perfect but marks a significant improvement and a base upon which we can build in negotiations with the other institutions.
I would welcome the adoption of this new Directive by the European Union, andI am pleased that a compromise package has been created that is even more acceptable from the perspective of environmental protection.
I am satisfied that the compromise package will allow the EU take the lead in environmental protection whilst respecting the integrity of national legal systems.
In writing.- The continued lack of a thorough impact assessment means that the EPLP is unable to support the compromise package negotiated between the Council and the European Parliament rapporteur, as there is no clear indication of its impact on food production.
The compromise package will introduce monitoring obligations in relation to certain fine particles and, hopefully, marks a step in the right direction in improving the quality of air and, accordingly, the quality of life for European citizens.
What an irony that those Members of Parliament trying to break up the compromise package are effectively supporting those Member States not wanting to have any European safeguards on return in the first place!
The compromise package sets out very clear commitments in the text of the review article, demonstrating that a more ambitious annual limit value will be considered as part of the mandatory review in 2013 and by setting the indicative limit value for PM2.5.
I believe that the vote for this compromise package is a vote in favour of competitive markets, clear information and more informed consumer choice.
The compromise package achieved deals, satisfactorily enough under the circumstances, on most controversial issues involved, such as biofuels, metallic additives and the sulphur content of some fuels, and my group fully supports it.
I should like to say that the European Commission is prepared to accept the compromise package, especially the point relating to the need to extend the transitional period by four years instead of three and the point relating to the two-year limitation on any further extensions, in order to facilitate the review programme.
With this compromise package in mind, I think that the objective of the proposed regulation- which, as is well known, is to harmonise legislation controlling the use of enzymes in food processing in the EU, with the primary aim of protecting human health but also secondarily to promote fair trade and competition- will be very largely achieved.
I believe the European Parliament, especially the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,has managed to assemble and present a compromise package that reflects a wise choice of approach, ensuring, for example, that the traditional oenological methods used in the Member States are clearly explained on the basis of differences in European viniculture and- something I consider very important- that quality wines are set apart from table wines.
