EU-Mythbusting

Linton

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Isn't this a similar deficit to that of the US with the whole of the world, with a much bigger economy, or am I missing something? I know I probably am.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

You are!! The reference is deficit per month.

ILW

No comment on the fact that the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts every year since it kicked off. Would anyone in their right mind pay hefty membership fees to such an organisation?

Linton

ILW wrote: »

No comment on the fact that the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts every year since it kicked off. Would anyone in their right mind pay hefty membership fees to such an organisation?

I think you will find that this arises from problems of documentation once the money reaches some of the member countries. The actual EU accounts have been stated as being reliable.

I have come across a quote on the net from the UK government auditor to the effect that if the UK had the same strict criterion of government auditing as the EU then he would have to "qualify" the whole of the UK central government expenditure.

ILW

Linton wrote: »

I think you will find that this arises from problems of documentation once the money reaches some of the member countries. The actual EU accounts have been stated as being reliable.

I have come across a quote on the net from the UK government auditor to the effect that if the UK had the same strict criterion of government auditing as the EU then he would have to "qualify" the whole of the UK central government expenditure.

Would you accept that as an explnantion from any other organisation, and still keep paying money to them?

Linton

ILW wrote: »

Would you accept that as an explnantion from any other organisation, and still keep paying money to them?

Its not an "explanation" given by the E&U. Its a statement that can be checked as either true of false. Lots of links for you to work through here

However as usual with the EU debate if the facts dont fit in with the tabloid anti-EU agenda, lets ignore the facts.

ILW

Linton wrote: »

Its not an "explanation" given by the E&U. Its a statement that can be checked as either true of false. Lots of links for you to work through here

However as usual with the EU debate if the facts dont fit in with the tabloid anti-EU agenda, lets ignore the facts.

It basically says that the EU handing over chunks of money to member states and has no idea what then happens to it. As a net contributor I would consider this unacceptable.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

It basically says that the EU handing over chunks of money to member states and has no idea what then happens to it. As a net contributor I would consider this unacceptable.

No, its not saying that at all.

==========

"1. Myth: The European Union’s accounts are not audited, or, the Auditors refuse to sign off on the accounts.

1. Fact: The Auditors actually audit the European Union’s accounts every year, and the funds spent by the EU itself are signed off. However the Auditors annually criticise the member state governments for not providing information on how THEY spent the money given to them by the European Union."

http://jebadel.com/visionsoftomorrow/?p=10

==========

If the European Union gives a certain sum of money to, say, Holland, and this country fails to explain how it's spent this sum, why should the EU be blamed? If anything, it's Holland's fault. As stated above, "the funds spent by the EU itself are signed off".

==========

"The Court of Auditors has given last year, as it did in previous years, a clean bill of health on the EU accounts. The Court confirms these accounts faithfully reflect how the EU budget was spent. The Court also gives a separate opinion on whether all payments have been correctly processed, i.e. paid on time, the invoice properly signed, amounts paid correctly, whether the best and cheapest suppliers have been chosen, etc. The Court says it can only give positive assurance on some spending, not on the whole budget, as it has found errors in some of the payments under scrutiny.

Most of the errors found by the Court concerned EU funds under national management.

The EU test is much more rigorous than that of the private sector, where only book-keeping records are audited.

Sir John Bourn, the UK's Comptroller & Auditor, has recently confirmed that if the UK had a similar test to the European one, he might have to qualify the whole of British Central Government expenditure. In the UK some 500 accounts representing the expenditure of the British government are audited and signed off separately, with some not passing the test each year, whereas the whole of EU expenditure is subject to a single verdict."

http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=109141

==========

And, from Terry Wynn's webpage:

Budget Control

"Is it true that the accounts of the EU have not been signed-off for 10 years?"

The simple answer is no.

Enterprise_1701C

There is one big disadvantage to being in the EU - we can't control who moves here. Off the top of my head I believe all Roumanians will be entitled to come here and live off our hard work in early 2014. A lot of them will expect to come here and be handed a house and full living expenses.

If we try to block this we will probably be told off by a bunch of unelected idiots that want to increase their own income whilst trying to tell everyone else that they have to live a life of austerity.

Being in the EU we are not allowed to put up the "country full" signs. I am all for self-supporting immigrants but not those that have no intention of supporting themselves at any time, nor of even learning the language.

Europe should go back to being a Common Market. If they want to move forward they need to get the books in order, stamp out fraud, bring in their own austerity measure including only sitting in one place rather than making the costly move between the two, and actually start serving the people rather than themselves. They have to realise they are not a union of France and Germany but that they have to take into consideration the needs of all countries within the union.

I might be interested in a democratic EU, but at the moment it just looks like Germany trying to conquer the whole of Europe peacefully rather than by waging war.

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No, its not saying that at all.

==========

"1. Myth: The European Union’s accounts are not audited, or, the Auditors refuse to sign off on the accounts.

1. Fact: The Auditors actually audit the European Union’s accounts every year, and the funds spent by the EU itself are signed off. However the Auditors annually criticise the member state governments for not providing information on how THEY spent the money given to them by the European Union."

http://jebadel.com/visionsoftomorrow/?p=10

==========

If the European Union gives a certain sum of money to, say, Holland, and this country fails to explain how it's spent this sum, why should the EU be blamed? If anything, it's Holland's fault. As stated above, "the funds spent by the EU itself are signed off".

==========

"The Court of Auditors has given last year, as it did in previous years, a clean bill of health on the EU accounts. The Court confirms these accounts faithfully reflect how the EU budget was spent. The Court also gives a separate opinion on whether all payments have been correctly processed, i.e. paid on time, the invoice properly signed, amounts paid correctly, whether the best and cheapest suppliers have been chosen, etc. The Court says it can only give positive assurance on some spending, not on the whole budget, as it has found errors in some of the payments under scrutiny.

Most of the errors found by the Court concerned EU funds under national management.

The EU test is much more rigorous than that of the private sector, where only book-keeping records are audited.

Sir John Bourn, the UK's Comptroller & Auditor, has recently confirmed that if the UK had a similar test to the European one, he might have to qualify the whole of British Central Government expenditure. In the UK some 500 accounts representing the expenditure of the British government are audited and signed off separately, with some not passing the test each year, whereas the whole of EU expenditure is subject to a single verdict."

http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=109141

==========

And, from Terry Wynn's webpage:

Budget Control

"Is it true that the accounts of the EU have not been signed-off for 10 years?"

The simple answer is no.

Seems to be exactly what it says. The EU give money and some member states fail in their duty to record where it went, then the EU give them more. Sounds mad to me.
It it not part of the deal that member states demonstrate what they do with the cash?

Linton

Interesting quote from the audit of the UK Whole of Government Accounts, November 2012:

"Auditors have qualified the Whole of Government Accounts for the second consecutive year due to ‘significant issues’ with the quality and consistency of the data used in the financial statements."

Strange, I didnt notice any headlines at the time.